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


Baboo Lal Rajpoot v. State Of U.P. And Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 11248 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 7865 (27 April 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. 36

                    Crl. Misc. Writ Petition no. 11248 of  2006

Baboo Lal Rajpoot . . . . .  ..  .  . . .  . .   . . . . . . . .  .   . .Petitioner.


State of U.P. and others . . . . . . .  . .   .  . .  . . .  . . . .Respondents.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            


Hon'ble Yatindra Singh,J.

Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

This is a writ petition  for issuing  a direction to the respondents to comply with the order dated 22.3.1988 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh district Agra and the order  of the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Agra  dated 23.7.1992 and the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 30.12.2005. No counter affidavit  has been filed  by the State of U.P., respondent no.1  and its authorities respondents no. 2 and 3.  However, an impleadment application has been moved  by Naresh Chand along with  counter affidavit.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It appears from perusal of the affidavit filed in support of  the writ petition  as well as from the affidavit  filed in support of impleadment application of Naresh Chand that there is some property dispute  between Babu Lal and Naresh Chand. Babu Lal claimed  the disputed property to be public way and it was alleged that  encroachment  upon that property had been done by Roshan Lal, Sharvan Lal, Deena and Mukesh etc. The order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh on 22.3.1988 for removal of these  encroachment and obstructions was confirmed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge vide his  judgment  dated 22.7.1992. Thereafter again an order was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 30.12.2005 for removal of these obstructions and since they were not removed, the petitioner has filed  this writ petition.

It appears  from perusal of the counter affidavit filed in support of impleadment  application of Naresh Chand  that his father  allegedly purchased the disputed property by  registered sale deed and in the case under section 133 Cr.P.C. before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh he was not impleaded,  and his brother Deen Dayal was impleaded, and so order for removal of constructions is not  binding upon  him. He filed a suit to this effect in the court of the Civil Judge ( Junior Division ) Agra ( Suit no. 371 of 1990 ) impleading the U.P. State as  the defendant and that suit was decreed  exparte  restraining the defendants  from interfering with his possession over the property. We are  of the view that the  concerned  parties  should seek their remedy before the courts  concerned in accordance with the provisions of law  and the present writ petition is not maintainable  in view of the alternative remedy.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.




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.