Allahabad High Court
DIGVIJAY SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the correctness of the demarcation is a factual issue to be determined on evidence, and therefore refused to grant the writ of mandamus.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking mandamus directing the District Level Committee (DLC) in Gorakhpur to decide his representation promptly and to order the construction of a road as per the revenue map, preventing demolition of his house. The DLC had earlier demarcated the petitioner’s property and found encroachment on public land. The petitioner contended that the DLC failed to conduct the survey according to revenue records, arguing that a proper demarcation would have shown no encroachment. The Court held that the question of whether the DLC followed the correct demarcation procedure is a factual issue that must be decided on the basis of pleadings and evidence, not by a writ. Consequently, the Court declined to issue mandamus and dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue any appropriate remedy under law.
Issues considered
- Whether the District Level Committee was required to demarcate the petitioner’s property as per revenue records.
- Whether the demarcation procedure adopted by the Committee was correct and amenable to judicial review.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the Committee to decide the petitioner’s representation within a stipulated period.
- Whether the Court can direct the construction of the road as per the revenue map and restrain demolition of the petitioner’s house.
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- district level committee
- demarcation
- encroachment
- public land
- road widening
- procedural fact
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17484 of 2026
Digvijay Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amar Nath Tiwari, Rishi Kant Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, has sought
the following reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
the District Level Committee, Gorakhpur (respondent no. 4), to decide
the representation of the petitioner dated 26.02.2026 expeditiously,
preferably within the stipulated period fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
ii. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondents to fix/construct the existing road at its actual place as
per the revenue map, prior to demarcation/measurement for widening
the road into two lanes from Air Force Station to Turra Naala through
Rajahi Camp, and not to demolish the house of the petitioner
arbitrarily."
3. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ-C
No. 29172 of 2025, whereby this Court referred the matter to the
District Level Committee to carry out demarcation of the petitioner’s
house so as to determine whether the petitioner had encroached upon
any public land. In compliance with the order and judgment of this
Court in Writ-C No. 29172 of 2025, the District Level Committee
conducted the demarcation and found that there was some
encroachment by the petitioner.
4. According to the petitioner, the District Level Committee has not
WRIC No. 17484 of 2026
2
conducted the survey/measurement of the petitioner’s house as per
the revenue records, and if the demarcation had been carried out
properly, there would have been no finding of encroachment. The
petitioner contends that the report of the District Level Committee
would have shown that there was no encroachment of public land by
the petitioner.
5. The question as to whether the District Level Committee was
supposed to carry out demarcation as per the revenue records, or
whether the procedure adopted by it in demarcating the land was
correct, is a question of fact. Further, the issue as to whether the
demarcation was carried out properly or not can be determined only
on the basis of pleadings and evidence on record.
6. In such view of the fact, we are not inclined to grant the reliefs
prayed for by the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with liberty to
the petitioner to avail of such appropriate remedy as may be
available in law.
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
May 5, 2026
Sachin Mishra
Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…