Abdul Muttalib v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Vakalatnama filed by Shri Pravin Kumar Verma, Advocate & Shri Vivek Kumar, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party no. 8 is taken on record. Heard. The petitioner alleges interference in his possession by the official opposite parties, however, learned Standing Counsel has instructions to inform the Court that the land which the petitioner claims to have purchased is in form of a pond and is recorded as a non-zamindari land, therefore, Tehsildar, Colonelganj, District - Gonda, has given the petitioner a notice dated 05.04.2025 which bears a receipt of the petitioner on 08.04.2025. The said notice is taken on record. It has not been disclosed in the writ petition. In any case, these are not matters to be seen under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Lokesh Kumar [Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 01 May 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.