Anil Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Operative part
The Addl. C.S.C. Sri Raj Baksh Singh has instructions that on a complaint made by the opp. party No. 6, the Revenue and Police officials has visited the spot and an attempt was made to pacify the parties and also if possible they may resolve the dispute amicably, but this could not happen, therefore, the Revenue and Police officials came back and they are not interfering in the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has already filed a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed executed by the opp. party No. 7 in the name of the opp. party No. 6. These issues cannot be seen under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As regards interference by revenue authorities or any other police officials, the petitioners should approach Superintendent of Police, Raebareli raising specific grievance, giving details thereof, which can be got inquired as the police officials can interfere in such matters only if there is a law and order problem, apprehension of breach of peace, apprehension of commission of any crime or it has actually been committed or there is order of any court to be complied or there are other valid grounds in any law/statue for their interference. If any such application is filed then S.P., Raebareli shall get the same inquired to ascertain the correct facts and do the needful after hearing the affected parties but at the earliest. Likewise, if there is any grievance against revenue officials, petitioner may approach the District Magistrate, Raebareli, who may do the needful, as aforesaid. Ordered accordingly. We, however, make it clear that we have not at all entered into question of title and possession, if any, involved in the matter pertaining to the land in question. The writ petition is disposed of. This order is without prejudice to the right(s), if any, of the opp. party Nos. 6 and 7 in respect of the land in question. Sri Raj Baksh Singh, Addl. C.S.C. shall communicate our order to the official opp. parties. Let a copy of this order be provided to the parties within forty eight hours on payment of usual charges. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 10.4.2025 A.Nigam ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 10 Apr 2025. The bench was RAJAN ROY, PRAKASH SHUKLA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.