Allahabad High Court
VIJAI SHANKAR YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the matter is a private dispute requiring factual determination and mandamus cannot be issued against a private person under Article 226.
Summary
The petitioner alleged that private respondents were encroaching on his land and sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authority to consider his application dated 01‑04‑2026 and pass an order. The Court observed that the dispute was essentially between private parties and hinged on a factual question of encroachment that required material evidence. Under Article 226, the High Court cannot entertain a writ petition that involves a factual dispute requiring evidence, nor can it issue a mandamus against a private person. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue any appropriate legal remedy. The decision underscores the limitation of the court's jurisdiction in private disputes under Article 226.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus under Article 226 can be issued to compel a public authority to act on a private land‑encroachment dispute requiring factual determination
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition when the matter involves a question of fact that can only be decided on the basis of evidence
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- Article 226
- private dispute
- land encroachment
- jurisdiction
- factual dispute
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17625 of 2026
Vijai Shankar Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Chaudhary, Shashank
Shekhar 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-respondents.
2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the
following relief:-
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondent no.2 to consider the application dated 01.04.2026 filed by
the petitioner and pass appropriate order within the time to be specified
by this Hon'ble Court."
3. It is alleged that private respondent nos.4 & 5 are attempting to encroach
upon the land of petitioner, and petitioner in this respect has submitted a
representation to the respondent-authority for redressal of the same. There is
no allegation against the State-respondents that they are interfering with the
possession of petitioner.
4. The dispute is essentially a private dispute between the petitioner and
private respondents, who are attempting to encroach the land of petitioner.
5. The dispute between petitioner and private persons involves disputed
question of fact as to whether petitioner's land has been encroached upon by
private respondents which question cannot be decided by this Court in
exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the said
question can be adjudicated only on the basis of material and evidence on
record.
6. It is also pertinent to note that this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus
WRIC No. 17625 of 2026
2
against a private person under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to
avail appropriate remedy available under the law.
May 6, 2026
Sattyarth
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SATTYARTH ANAND
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…