Allahabad High Court
SHYAM SINGH KUSHWAHAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation and the Nagar Ayukt to decide it within four weeks, without adjudicating the merits of the substantive claims.
Summary
The petitioner, Shyam Singh Kushwaha, filed a writ petition seeking mandamus directing the State and the Nagar Ayukt to (a) refrain from interfering with his peaceful possession of land in Mathura, (b) allow him to construct a tin shed on his shop premises, and (c) decide a representation he had filed on 24.12.2025 within a fixed period. The petitioner alleged that the Nagar Ayukt had not acted on his application dated 24.12.2025. The respondents argued that the petitioner should file a fresh representation, which would then be decided expeditiously. The Court held that it would not adjudicate the merits of the substantive claims but allowed the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with a certified copy of the order within two weeks. The Court further directed the Nagar Ayukt to decide any such representation within four weeks, emphasizing compliance with the relevant rules. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed without granting the substantive relief sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue mandamus directing the State authorities not to interfere with the petitioner's possession of land
- Whether mandamus can be issued to permit construction of a tin shed on the petitioner's own land
- Whether the Court can compel the Nagar Ayukt to decide the petitioner's representation within a stipulated time
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- peaceful possession
- administrative representation
- High Court of Allahabad
- procedural order
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 10252 of 2026
Shyam Singh Kushwaha
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Subedar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Harsh Vardhan Gupta
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for
State- respondent and Sri Harsh Vardhan Gupta, learned counsel for the
respondent nos.2 and 3.
2. Present petition has been filed seeking following substantial relief:-
"a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondent authorities not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the
petitioner over his land situated at Mauja Chattikara, Vrindavan Road,
District Mathura.
b). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent no.2 to permit the petitioner to construct the tin shed in front
of his shop over his own land, in accordance with law.
c). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent no.2 to consider and decide the representation/application
dated 24.02.2025 submitted by the petitioner within a stipulated period as
may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for redressal of his
grievance, petitioner has filed application dated 24.12.2025 before
respondent No. 2-Nagar Ayukt but no decision has been taken till date.
Lastly, it is submitted that a direction may be issued to respondent No. 2
to decide the representation within a stipulated time.
WRIC No. 10252 of 2026
2
4. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that petitioner may be
directed to file fresh representation. Further, in case any such
representation is filed, the same shall be considered and decided at the
earliest.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is
disposed of with liberty to petitioner to move fresh representation along
with certified copy of this order before respondent No. 2 within two
weeks from today. In case any such representation is filed, respondent
no.2 is directed to decide the same in accordance with law maximum
within a period of four weeks thereafter.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the case on merits. It
is upon respondent no.2 to pass order after considering the relevant Rules
as well as facts of the case.
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.)
March 18, 2026
Sachin Mishra
Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…