The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for the removal of encroachment by a private respondent, reaffirming that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued against private individuals.
The Justice Prakash Padia observed that if a petitioner is aggrieved by the actions of private individuals, the appropriate course of action is to avail common law remedies rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Chanda Devi, had approached the High Court filing WRIT-C No. 1800 of 2026. The primary relief sought was a direction to the state authorities, specifically Respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4, to “demarcate and remove the encroachment made by the Respondent No.5 over the land in dispute.”
The land in question is identified as Arazi no. 640, measuring 0.025 hectares, situated in Village Kalyanpur, Police Station Jafrabad, Pargana Jafrabad, Tehsil Sadar, District Jaunpur.
Arguments
During the proceedings, the Learned Standing Counsel representing the State and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Gaon Sabha raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition.
They submitted that the grievance of the petitioner was directed against private individuals. Consequently, they argued that “if the petitioner is aggrieved against private individuals then the proper course open for him is to apply for common law remedy.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
After perusing the record, the Court noted that the relief sought by the petitioner was indeed against private individuals. Justice Padia emphasized that such relief cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction.
In a key observation regarding the scope of writ jurisdiction, the Court stated:
“Law in this connection is well settled that mandamus cannot be issued against the private individuals and the appropriate remedy lies under the common law.”
Decision
In view of the settled legal position, the High Court dismissed the petition. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate legal recourse.
The judgment concluded:
“In this view of the matter, the present petition is dismissed with the liberty to avail the common law remedy, if so advised.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Chanda Devi Versus State Of U.P. And 4 Others
- Case Number: WRIT-C No. 1800 of 2026
- Coram: Justice Prakash Padia
- Counsel for Petitioner: Brijesh Kumar Prajapati, Mahesh Kumar, Maheshwari Prasad Srivastava, Surendra Kumar Singh
- Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C. (Chief Standing Counsel)
