CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Satish Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 6 May 2010 · Citation: (2010) 6 AWC 5832

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satya Poot Mehrotra, J · S.C. Agarwal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.M.W.P. No. 24506 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

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

10 paragraphs · 351 words

Satya Poot Mehrotra and S.C. Agarwal, JJ.—The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, making following prayers :

(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad to pay Rs. 5,00,000 (five lac) as damages for illegal occupation of the Petitioner''s plot No. 517 situated in village Chhajarsi, Pargana Loni, Tehsil-Dadarsi, district Gautam Buddh Nagar.

(ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to use the Petitioner''s land as garbage land with immediate effect and to remove the earlier garbage put over the land of the Petitioner in a time fixed by this Hon''ble Court.

(iii) pass an appropriate writ order or direction which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) award cost of writ petition in favour of the Petitioner.

2.

The case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner is owner of Plot No. 517 situated in village Chhajarsi, Pargana Loni, Tehsil-Dadarsi, district Gautam Buddh Nagar, and that for the last two years, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been putting garbage over the said plot of the Petitioner.

3.

We have heard Shri P.K.S. Paliwal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri Brijesh Kumar Dubey, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and perused the record.

4.

Having regard to the averments made in the writ petition, we are of the opinion that factual controversy is involved in the present writ petition which can be resolved only after taking oral and documentary evidence. Such controversy cannot properly be resolved in the writ petition. Proper course for the Petitioner is to avail of remedy of filing suit for redressal of his grievances.

5.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the Petitioner.

6.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the Petitioner.