Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Lahru Yadav v. Addl. District Judge, Court No. 7, Azamgarh & Others - WRIT - C No. 26492 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 11908 (13 July 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


                                                                                       Court No.6.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26492 of 2007.

Lahru Yadav.                Vs.    Additional District Judge, Court No.7.,

                                             Azamgarh and others.

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

         A suit for injunction was filed by the petitioner against the State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha. The petitioner's case is that on the disputed land there are two madaiyas, boring, hand pump, naad-khuta and trees planted by the father of the plaintiff and it is the ancestral sahan land of the plaintiff. An application for temporary injunction was also filed. The trial court restrained the defendants from cutting the tress and from demolishing constructions without recourse to law and directed the parties to maintain status quo. Against the order an appeal was filed by the Gaon Sabha and State of U.P. The appeal has been allowed by the Additional District Judge, Azamgarh. What has been found by the appellate court is that the possession of the petitioner is that of a tress passer. It has been found by the appellate court that the petitioner can be compensated in terms of money even if the madaiyas and chara machine are removed.

          I have heard the learned Standing counsel and the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. Counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be disposed of finally today.

               The finding of the appellate court is that the plaintiff can be compensated in terms of money if madaiyas and chara machine etc. are removed. In paragraph 4 of the plaint it has been stated that the plaintiff is residing in the madaiya. The view taken by the appellate court that compensation in terms of money would be sufficient even if the madaiyas or chara machine are removed or trees are cut. On facts refusal of injunction  does not appear to be correct. The  trial court was of the view that the property in dispute ought to be preserved during the pendency of the suit. The defendants alleged that the disputed land is part of plot no. 424, which is 'banjar' land of the Gaon Sabha. The trial court was of the view that the title of the parties can be decided after evidence. In the facts and circumstances the order of the trial court directing the parties to maintain status quo appears to be correct. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the suit may be directed to be disposed of early. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will not take any unnecessary adjournment. In the circumstances the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit, if possible, within a period of one year from the date a certified copy of this order is filed by the plaintiff/petitioner. During the pendency of the suit the parties shall maintain the status quo. With the above directions the writ petition is disposed of finally.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.