Moharram Ali vs State Of U.P. Thru Addl Chief Secy. Dept. Of

No.2 to the writ petition. After exchange of pleadings, Civil Judge, partly decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner by judgement and order dated 28.8.1998 The petitioner thereafter, sought and 3 WRIC No. 1752 of 2022 received permission for construction by the District Roadside Land Control Officer on 14.6.1996 and constructed some shops on part of such land. The remaining portion had remained vacant. The petitioner is residing in Lucknow and he visited his parental village only sometimes, however on 22.3.2022, he came to know that the opposite party nos.5 to 7 have started constructions over the vacant part of the petitioner's land and have taken forcible possession. The petitioner reported the matter to the police but the police did not cooperate. The police while refusing to cooperate with the petitioner, have allowed constructions of boundary walls by the opposite party nos.5 to 7 and they have constructed such boundary wall by 22.3.2022. The original photographs of the construction is being filed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition.

5. Being the legal owner of the land of Gata No.286 area 0-06 and Gata No.287 area 0-28 dismil, the petitioner made a complaint the police regarding unauthorised construction by respondent nos.5 to 7 but no heed was paid and therefore this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the aforesaid prayers.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of the arguments has placed reliance upon two orders passed by this Court.

7. We have gone through the order sheet. By the order dated

29.3.2022, when the matter was taken up as fresh, the court had given the Standing Counsel a week's time to obtain instructions as to whether any encroachment upon the land belonging to the 4 WRIC No. 1752 of 2022 petitioner in relation whereto a decree has been rendered in his favour has been made or not. Thereafter the matter has been listed on several dates but it could not be taken up. It was taken upon on 11.4.2023 where this Court has issued notices to the respondent nos.5 to 7 and thereafter the Court has observed as follows : " We would like to ascertain as to whether the opposite party nos.5,6 and 7 have anything to do with the land forming part of Gata No.286 and 287, as, if they have a claim or have raised any claim before any Court or Forum, then, we will consider maintainability of this writ petition, otherwise, if they are strangers to the land then we will have to see as to why Official opposite parties can not protect the rights of the petitioner in respect of the said land, especially as, they petitioner claims to have a decree in respect of the land in question in his favour. For considering the aforesaid limited issue let counter affidavit be filed by the opposite parties within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter. List thereafter. All pleas are open for consideration."

8. The respondent State has filed counter affidavit on 21.9.2023 sworn by the Naib Tehsildar wherein it has been stated that on Gata No.286, residential house of Shri Aminuddin son of Ismail is constructed on 0.010 hectare, residential house of Shri Rajendra Agarwal son of Prabhudayal is constructed on 0.008 hectare, residential house of Mayank Agarwal son of Janaki is constructed on 0.006 hectare. On Gata No.287, residential house of Shri 5 WRIC No. 1752 of 2022 Rajendra Agarwal is in existence on 0.019 hectare. Residential House of Shri Sukhdev Singh son of Lakkha Singh is constructed on 0.035 hectare. Residential house of Shri Akeel has been constructed on 0.035 hectare and the petitioner's own house is constructed on 0.019 hectare. These houses have been in existence and constructed previously and presently there is no construction taking place in respect of the land in question. It has further been submitted that there is a private dispute in between the petitioner and the respondent nos.5 to 7 which is required to be resolved after declaration of rights/tile before the competent court. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that on Gata No.286/ 0.24 hectare and Gata No.287/0.114 hectare, situated in Village Suthnabarsola, Pargana Kherigarh, Tehsil Nighasan-Kheri, name of the petitioner has been recorded as Sankramaniya Bhumidhar revenue records. The allegations regarding police not cooperating and hence assisting the private respondents nos.5 to 7 have been denied.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand in his rejoinder affidavit filed on 4.7.2025 has stated that the land in question has been inherited by him from his father and he is the recorded bhumidhar of the same and the Naib Tehsildar in his counter affidavit has disclosed the measurement of each of the residential houses of the alleged encroachers and it is apparent that he visited the spot and measured the property encroached upon by the encroachers but he has not submitted the site plan of the property so as to disclose as to which part of the property has been encroached upon by which of the encroachers. It is further 6 WRIC No. 1752 of 2022 submitted that it is not a private dispute. There is no requirement of declaration from the competent court of law. When the revenue records itself state that the petitioner alone is a recorded tenure holder of the land in question and the respondents have not disclosed as to on what basis the encroachment has been made by the private respondents.

10. It has also come out from perusal of the rejoinder affidavit that the suit that had been filed by he petitioner and his father was for permanent injunction against Parasram, Ramakant and Man Singh and the suit was partly decreed. Some part of the property could not be proved as owned and possessed by the petitioner and was found to be the property of Parasram and the suit of the petitioner and his father was decreed for only some part of the land.

11. It has been argued that the respondent nos.5 to 7 have encroached upon the property of the petitioner without any right or title and such encroachment is illegal and a criminal act. Since the official respondents have not restrained them from taking any action, the opposite parties nos.5 to 7 got encouragement to make such illegal encroachment.

12. It is evident from perusal of the para 17 fo the rejoinder affidavit that the petitioner also came to know that the opposite parties have secured certain sale deeds to show them as valid title holders of the property in question. The first sale deed was executed by one Naseer Ahmad in favour of one Aqeel Ahmed son of Mohd. Siddiq. It is contended that Naseer Ahmad the seller of the property had not disclosed as to the property of which 7 WRIC No. 1752 of 2022 Khasra number has been sold out by him and what is the area and boundary of land sold by him. Aqeel Ahmad on the basis of a fabricated sale deed from Naseer Ahmad who had no title to the property, has constructed his house on the land of the petitioner. Aqeel Ahmad, the respondent no.5 obtained a sale deed of 1310 sq. ft equivalent to 121.75 sq. meters but this area is more than the area indicated by the Tehsildar in the counter affidavit. Aqeel Ahmad respondent no.5 is told to be in occupation of 0.035 hectare which is 3 times more than the land allegedly purchased by Aqeel Ahmad. Subsequently, Aqeel Ahmad sold out his land to Ramesh Singh, son of Angrej Singh by means of the sale deed and some property has been sold off to Prakat Singh.

13. There are certain averments made in rejoinder affidavit relating to discrepancy in the boundary walls of the sale deeds executed to various persons which are not relevant for the purpose of decision in this writ petition.

14. It is evident from the averments made in the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit that the decree of the civil suit in regular suit no.250/ 1991 was not against any of the opposite party nos.5 to 7 or their predecessors in interests. The suit was filed against Parasram son of Moolchand, Ramakant son of not known to the plaintiff and Man Singh son of Janrail Singh. It appears that after such decree, the petitioner neglected to take care of his property and some other private persons have sold off the plots illegally without mentioning any Gata number or area being sold off by them and houses have been built on the basis of such sale 8 WRIC No. 1752 of 2022 deeds by the purchasers of such property.

15. The dispute raised in the writ petition is purely private in nature. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any sale deed made out in favour of Aqeel Ahmad or any sale deed made subsequently by Aqeel Ahmad in favour of other private persons, it would be open for the petitioner to approach the competent civil court for cancellation of such sale deeds executed with respect to the land of the petitioner.

16. In view of the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. September 10, 2025 Shukla (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

No.2 to the writ petition. After exchange of pleadings, Civil Judge, partly decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner by judgement and order dated 28.8.1998 The petitioner thereafter, sought and 3 WRIC No. 1752 of 2022 received permission for construction by the District Roadside Land Control Officer on 14.6.1996 and constructed some shops on part of such land. The remaining portion had remained vacant. The petitioner is residing in Lucknow and he visited his parental village only sometimes, however on 22.3.2022, he came to know that the opposite party nos.5 to 7 have started constructions over the vacant part of the petitioner's land and have taken forcible possession. The petitioner reported the matter to the police but the police did not cooperate. The police while refusing to cooperate with the petitioner, have allowed constructions of boundary walls by the opposite party nos.5 to 7 and they have constructed such boundary wall by 22.3.2022. The original photographs of the construction is being filed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition.

5. Being the legal owner of the land of Gata No.286 area 0-06 and Gata No.287 area 0-28 dismil, the petitioner made a complaint the police regarding unauthorised construction by respondent nos.5 to 7 but no heed was paid and therefore this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the aforesaid prayers.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of the arguments has placed reliance upon two orders passed by this Court.

7. We have gone through the order sheet. By the order dated

29.3.2022, when the matter was taken up as fresh, the court had given the Standing Counsel a week's time to obtain instructions as to whether any encroachment upon the land belonging to the 4 WRIC No. 1752 of 2022 petitioner in relation whereto a decree has been rendered in his favour has been made or not. Thereafter the matter has been listed on several dates but it could not be taken up. It was taken upon on 11.4.2023 where this Court has issued notices to the respondent nos.5 to 7 and thereafter the Court has observed as follows : " We would like to ascertain as to whether the opposite party nos.5,6 and 7 have anything to do with the land forming part of Gata No.286 and 287, as, if they have a claim or have raised any claim before any Court or Forum, then, we will consider maintainability of this writ petition, otherwise, if they are strangers to the land then we will have to see as to why Official opposite parties can not protect the rights of the petitioner in respect of the said land, especially as, they petitioner claims to have a decree in respect of the land in question in his favour. For considering the aforesaid limited issue let counter affidavit be filed by the opposite parties within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter. List thereafter. All pleas are open for consideration."

8. The respondent State has filed counter affidavit on 21.9.2023 sworn by the Naib Tehsildar wherein it has been stated that on Gata No.286, residential house of Shri Aminuddin son of Ismail is constructed on 0.010 hectare, residential house of Shri Rajendra Agarwal son of Prabhudayal is constructed on 0.008 hectare, residential house of Mayank Agarwal son of Janaki is constructed on 0.006 hectare. On Gata No.287, residential house of Shri 5 WRIC No. 1752 of 2022 Rajendra Agarwal is in existence on 0.019 hectare. Residential House of Shri Sukhdev Singh son of Lakkha Singh is constructed on 0.035 hectare. Residential house of Shri Akeel has been constructed on 0.035 hectare and the petitioner's own house is constructed on 0.019 hectare. These houses have been in existence and constructed previously and presently there is no construction taking place in respect of the land in question. It has further been submitted that there is a private dispute in between the petitioner and the respondent nos.5 to 7 which is required to be resolved after declaration of rights/tile before the competent court. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that on Gata No.286/ 0.24 hectare and Gata No.287/0.114 hectare, situated in Village Suthnabarsola, Pargana Kherigarh, Tehsil Nighasan-Kheri, name of the petitioner has been recorded as Sankramaniya Bhumidhar revenue records. The allegations regarding police not cooperating and hence assisting the private respondents nos.5 to 7 have been denied.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand in his rejoinder affidavit filed on 4.7.2025 has stated that the land in question has been inherited by him from his father and he is the recorded bhumidhar of the same and the Naib Tehsildar in his counter affidavit has disclosed the measurement of each of the residential houses of the alleged encroachers and it is apparent that he visited the spot and measured the property encroached upon by the encroachers but he has not submitted the site plan of the property so as to disclose as to which part of the property has been encroached upon by which of the encroachers. It is further 6 WRIC No. 1752 of 2022 submitted that it is not a private dispute. There is no requirement of declaration from the competent court of law. When the revenue records itself state that the petitioner alone is a recorded tenure holder of the land in question and the respondents have not disclosed as to on what basis the encroachment has been made by the private respondents.

10. It has also come out from perusal of the rejoinder affidavit that the suit that had been filed by he petitioner and his father was for permanent injunction against Parasram, Ramakant and Man Singh and the suit was partly decreed. Some part of the property could not be proved as owned and possessed by the petitioner and was found to be the property of Parasram and the suit of the petitioner and his father was decreed for only some part of the land.

11. It has been argued that the respondent nos.5 to 7 have encroached upon the property of the petitioner without any right or title and such encroachment is illegal and a criminal act. Since the official respondents have not restrained them from taking any action, the opposite parties nos.5 to 7 got encouragement to make such illegal encroachment.

12. It is evident from perusal of the para 17 fo the rejoinder affidavit that the petitioner also came to know that the opposite parties have secured certain sale deeds to show them as valid title holders of the property in question. The first sale deed was executed by one Naseer Ahmad in favour of one Aqeel Ahmed son of Mohd. Siddiq. It is contended that Naseer Ahmad the seller of the property had not disclosed as to the property of which 7 WRIC No. 1752 of 2022 Khasra number has been sold out by him and what is the area and boundary of land sold by him. Aqeel Ahmad on the basis of a fabricated sale deed from Naseer Ahmad who had no title to the property, has constructed his house on the land of the petitioner. Aqeel Ahmad, the respondent no.5 obtained a sale deed of 1310 sq. ft equivalent to 121.75 sq. meters but this area is more than the area indicated by the Tehsildar in the counter affidavit. Aqeel Ahmad respondent no.5 is told to be in occupation of 0.035 hectare which is 3 times more than the land allegedly purchased by Aqeel Ahmad. Subsequently, Aqeel Ahmad sold out his land to Ramesh Singh, son of Angrej Singh by means of the sale deed and some property has been sold off to Prakat Singh.

13. There are certain averments made in rejoinder affidavit relating to discrepancy in the boundary walls of the sale deeds executed to various persons which are not relevant for the purpose of decision in this writ petition.

14. It is evident from the averments made in the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit that the decree of the civil suit in regular suit no.250/ 1991 was not against any of the opposite party nos.5 to 7 or their predecessors in interests. The suit was filed against Parasram son of Moolchand, Ramakant son of not known to the plaintiff and Man Singh son of Janrail Singh. It appears that after such decree, the petitioner neglected to take care of his property and some other private persons have sold off the plots illegally without mentioning any Gata number or area being sold off by them and houses have been built on the basis of such sale 8 WRIC No. 1752 of 2022 deeds by the purchasers of such property.

15. The dispute raised in the writ petition is purely private in nature. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any sale deed made out in favour of Aqeel Ahmad or any sale deed made subsequently by Aqeel Ahmad in favour of other private persons, it would be open for the petitioner to approach the competent civil court for cancellation of such sale deeds executed with respect to the land of the petitioner.

16. In view of the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. September 10, 2025 Shukla (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench