Allahabad High Court
VIJAI SHANKAR YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
No writ of mandamus can be issued against private individuals; the petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to consider an application dated 08‑04‑2026 and pass an order. The grievance arose from Respondents No.4 and No.5 cutting trees planted by the petitioner's father on ancestral land. The Court held that the dispute is a private matter involving factual issues that require evidence and cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution. It further noted that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued against private individuals and that district authorities lack jurisdiction absent an imminent threat to law and order. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies.
Issues considered
- Can a writ of mandamus be issued against a private individual under Article 226?
- Can the High Court interfere in a private dispute that hinges on factual determinations?
- Do district authorities have jurisdiction to intervene in a private dispute lacking a threat to law and order?
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- Article 226
- private dispute
- jurisdiction
- tree cutting
- ancestral property
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17727 of 2026
Vijai Shankar Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Chaudhary, Kamlesh
Singh
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
following relief;
"a. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the
respondent no.2 to consider the application dated 08.04.2026 filed by
the petitioner and pass appropriate order within the time to be specified
by this Hon'ble Court."
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent nos.4 and 5
are cutting the trees planted by the father of the petitioner on his
ancestral property.
4. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondent nso.4 and 5
is purely a private dispute and involves disputed questions of fact,
which can be adjudicated only on the basis of evidence, and
extensive factual inquiries. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be
decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner
and the respondent no. 4 are brothers and respondent no. 5 is the son
of respondent no. 4. Further, no writ of mandamus can be issued
against private individuals. It is also pertinent to note that the district
authorities have no jurisdiction to interfere in a private dispute unless
there is an imminent threat to law and order.
WRIC No. 17727 of 2026
2
5. In such view of the fact, we do not find any ground to interfere in
the present writ petition.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the
petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available in law.
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
May 6, 2026
Sachin Mishra
Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…