SIYARAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23055 of 2026

Siyaram
                                                                  .....Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                               .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                         :    Raj Karan Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)                         :

Court No. - 73
                       HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

"i. Issue a writ, order, rule or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus
commanding and directing the respondent authorities to ensure compliance of
judgment and order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil
Baberu,    District   Banda    in   Case    No.4149/2023,     Computerized     Case
No.T202307110204149, Siyaram vs. Santosh and others, and put the petitioner in
possession over the arazi in question(112 feet x 80 feet) in pursuance of agreement
dated 05.06.1995.

ii. Issue any other writ, order, rule or direction of the suitable nature which the
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a dispute arose between
the petitioner and private respondents nos. 4 and 5 in respect of the
disputed property, wherein proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were
initiated and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Baberu, District
Banda, by order dated 7.07.2025, recorded a finding that the petitioner
was in peaceful possession over the disputed property and restrained the
private respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession. A copy
of the said order was also directed to be forwarded to the Station House
Officer, Police Station Baberu, District Banda, for compliance. It is
submitted that despite the aforesaid order, the private respondents
continued to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner,
compelling him to approach the District Magistrate, Banda, who, in turn,
                                                      CRLP No. 23055 of 2026
                               2


directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baberu, to ensure compliance
with the order dated 7.07.2025. However, the said order has not been
effectively implemented. It is further submitted that the private
respondents had also moved an application for recall/restoration of the
order dated 7.07.2025, which came to be dismissed by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Baberu, by order dated 7.08.2026. Thus, according to learned
counsel for the petitioner, the order dated 7.07.2025 has attained finality
and there remains no impediment in its enforcement.

Per contra, learned AGA, on the basis of instructions, submits that a
perusal of the order dated 7.07.2025 itself makes it evident that the
petitioner continues to be in possession of the disputed property and that
he has not been dispossessed by the private respondents. Therefore, no
further direction is warranted in the present proceedings. He further
submits that, in the event the petitioner is dispossessed from the disputed
property, it would be open to him to avail the appropriate remedy before
the concerned police or revenue authorities in accordance with law. It is,
thus, submitted that the present writ petition has been filed without there
being any subsisting cause of action warranting interference by this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From a perusal of the record, it is evident that a dispute had arisen
between the petitioner and the private respondents in respect of the
disputed property, pursuant to which proceedings under Section 145
Cr.P.C. were initiated before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil
Baberu, District Banda. By order dated 7.07.2025, the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner was in
peaceful possession of the disputed property and restrained the private
respondents from interfering with such possession. The said order was
also directed to be communicated to the Station House Officer, Police
Station Baberu, District Banda, for compliance within seven days.

It further transpires that the petitioner submitted an application dated
01.09.2025 before the District Magistrate, Banda, seeking enforcement of
the order dated 7.07.2025, whereupon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was
directed to take steps for enforcement of the said order, subject to there
                                                                                           CRLP No. 23055 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    being no challenge to the same by way of appeal or other appropriate
                                    proceedings.

                                    It is also apparent from the record that, in the meantime, the private
                                    respondents preferred an application for recall/restoration of the order
                                    dated 7.07.2025, principally on the ground that the said order had been
                                    passed ex parte without affording them an opportunity of hearing. The
                                    said application has been dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
                                    Baberu, by order dated 7.08.2026.

                                    However, the order dated 7.08.2026 is amenable to the remedy of
                                    criminal revision before the competent Sessions Court and, as stated, the
                                    period prescribed for availing such remedy is ninety days. Thus, at this
                                    stage, the proceedings arising out of the order dated 7.08.2026 cannot be
                                    treated as having attained finality. Consequently, it would be premature
                                    for this Court to issue any positive direction for enforcement of the order
                                    dated 7.07.2025 in the manner sought by the petitioner.

                                    Furthermore, the material available on record does not indicate that the
                                    petitioner has, in fact, been dispossessed from the disputed property. On
                                    the contrary, the order dated 7.07.2025 itself records the possession of the
                                    petitioner, and there is no material before us to establish any subsequent
                                    dispossession or an imminent threat thereof requiring intervention of this
                                    Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

                                    In view of the foregoing, no ground for interference is made out. The writ
                                    petition is, accordingly, dismissed as being devoid of merit. It is,
                                    however, open to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available
                                    to him in law, in the event of any subsequent dispossession or interference
                                    with his possession.



                                                                                             (Sandeep Jain,J.)
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    Himanshu




Digitally signed by :-
HIMANSHU YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad