Allahabad High Court

DAUJIRAM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: GARIMA PRASHAD SARAL SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it cannot issue mandamus against private individuals and that Article 226 does not extend to private factual disputes.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the second respondent to decide their representation dated 18-10-2023 concerning alleged encroachment of their land by several private individuals. The court observed that the dispute is a private matter involving factual issues that require evidence and cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution. It further held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued against private persons and that district authorities lack jurisdiction to intervene in private disputes absent an imminent threat to law and order. Consequently, the court found no ground to interfere with the petition. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate legal remedies.

Issues considered

Can a writ of mandamus be issued against private individuals in a private land encroachment dispute?
Does Article 226 empower the High Court to adjudicate factual disputes between private parties?

Subjects

writ of mandamus
Article 226
private dispute
land encroachment
jurisdiction
High Court of Allahabad

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                       WRIT - C No. - 17786 of 2026

Daujiram And Another
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)          :   Ajit Kumar, Satya Prakash 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 petitioners and learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. The petitioners, by means of the present writ petition, has sought
following relief;
      "a. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding
      and directing the respondent no. 2 to decide the petitioner's
      representation dated 18.10.2023 pending before the respondent no.2"

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that their land has been
encroached by Bhudev Prashad, Sukhveer, Fulvari, Satyapal, Ranu,
Sattan and Dharmendra.
4. The dispute between the petitioners and Bhudev Prashad,
Sukhveer, Fulvari, Satyapal, Ranu, Sattan and Dharmendra is purely
a private dispute and involves disputed question 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. 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.
5. In such view of the fact, we do not find any ground to interfere in
                                                                                       WRIC No. 17786 of 2026
                                                                 2


                                    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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…