Allahabad High Court
PANKAJ AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition cannot be entertained; the petitioners must seek appropriate relief in the pending writ petition 8929 of 2007.
Summary
The petitioners, Pankaj and another, challenged an objection raised by respondents 4 and 5 to the removal of a tamarind tree that had fallen on the petitioners' land. They argued that the tree was originally standing away from the disputed land, which is already the subject of writ petition 8928 of 2007, and that they have a stay order protecting their possession of the land. The court examined the interim protection order dated 17 May 2010, which protects only the portion of land for which possession is currently stayed and is returnable after an inquiry. Consequently, the court held that the petitioners should pursue relief in the pending writ petition 8929 of 2007 rather than this petition. The court declined to entertain the present petition and consigned it to the records, granting the petitioners liberty to approach the pending writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petition challenging the removal of a fallen tamarind tree can be entertained in view of an existing interim protection order.
- Whether the Sub Divisional Magistrate has authority to direct removal of the tree when the land is under a stay order.
Subjects
- property dispute
- stay order
- interim protection order
- removal of tree
- writ petition
- jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 36440 of 2026
Pankaj And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashutosh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. Petitioner is basically aggrieved by the objection being raised by the
respondent Nos. 4 & 5 in removing a tamarind tree which is fallen upon
the land of the petitioner.
3. It is contended that tree was standing quite away from the land in
question, which is subject matter of dispute in Writ - C No.- 8928 of 2007
but since it has been fallen upon the land of the petitioner, entire dispute
is being created. It is submitted that he has already having an order of stay
as to his possession qua the land in question and, therefore, there should
no issue with the Sub Divisional Magistrate directing for removal of tree.
4. However, upon perusal of the interim protection order granted on 17th
May, 2010, we find that this order is in respect of the portion of the land
in question for which possession has been protected, which portion the
petitioner is in possession is returnable only after the inquiry. For this
purpose, therefore, the petitioner should seek an appropriate relief in
pending petition being Writ - C No.- 8929 of 2007, where respondent
Nos. 4 & 5 are the parties.
5. In the circumstances, we declined to entertain this petition. However,
liberty rests with the petitioner to seek appropriate relief in a pending writ
petition being Writ - C No.- 8929 of 2007, if so advised.
WRIC No. 36440 of 2026
2
6. Subject to aforesaid liberty, this petition is consigned to records.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
September 18, 2026
Atmesh
Digitally signed by :-
ATMESH KESARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…