AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
14 paragraphs · 270 wordsPrakash Shrivastava, CJ
This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd February, 2019 whereby WPA 12483 (W) of 2018 has been
dismissed.
Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is the title holder of the land in question and it has also been mutated in her
favour and that the private respondents are obstructing the construction of the boundary wall, therefore, police forces should be provided.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that before the learned Single Judge, on the basis of
the written instruction, the learned Counsel for the State had pointed out that the appellant’s complaint was enquired into by the Block Land and
Land Reforms Officer and in the enquiry, it was found that the claim of the appellant for the entire plot of land was not sustained by the land records
maintained by the Government.
In view of the above report, the learned Single Judge has rightly refused the assistance to the appellant by the police force for constructing the
boundary wall over the entire piece of land. Considering the nature of dispute, it has rightly been found that it is a civil dispute between the private
parties which needs to be resolved before the appropriate forum. In the circumstances of the case, we do not find any error in the view taken by the
learned Single Judge.
Hence, no case for interference in the order of the learned Single Judge is made out. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
