Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2170 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sheikh Ejaz Ahmed Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Shankar Prasad,Himanshu Kumar,Sr. Advocate Zafar Naiyer Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Zafar Naiyer, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 6.
The dispute raised in this writ petition is regarding gata no.316/1, area 0.1620 hectare situate in Village Mahpur, Tehsil Pargana, P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehpur. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the said property and by means of this writ petition wants that respondent no.1, Principal Secretary (Home), U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow be directed to issue necessary directions to the District Magistrate to restore possession of the said premises to the petitioner and to make an independent enquiry with regard to illegal dispossession of the petitioner from the said property.
A bare perusal of the various representations made by petitioner especially one which has been filed as Annexure 15 to the writ petition would demonstrate that there is a serious dispute regarding the aforesaid property between the petitioner and one Islam. The petitioner himself admits that the said Islam and his companions have illegally locked the said property and, therefore, he had made a prayer to the District Magistrate to get the locks of said Islam removed from the property and restore possession to the petitioner. In one of the representations, the petitioner has also mentioned that the police officers have helped the said Islam in taking possession of the property and that with the connivance of the police the property has been locked by the aforesaid Islam.
Be that, as it may be, as the matter involves disputed questions of fact with regard to the entitlement of the possession over the property, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to either lodge an F.I.R or a complaint against the erring persons or to institute a suit for the possession of the property.
In the end, Sri Zafar Naiyer, learned Senior Counsel submitted that there is already a writ petition pending between the parties wherein parties have been directed to maintain status quo. It is all the more reason that if any, writ petition much less Writ Petition No.18418 of 2017 (Islam Vs. Commissioner) is pending with interim order of status quo, the petitioner may get the desired relief therein.
The writ petition for the above purpose is not the appropriate remedy, it is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the other legal remedies as may be advised to him in law.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 S. Singh