Allahabad High Court
RAM MILANversusSTATE OF UP AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court declined to grant the writ relief and directed the petitioner to seek a temporary injunction in the pending suit.
Summary
The petitioner, Ram Milan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a court direction for a land measurement exercise, alleging trespass and interference by respondents No.4 and No.5. He already has a civil suit (O.S. No.603 of 2019) concerning the same land and had earlier obtained a direction from this Court under Article 227 (No.10208 of 2023). The High Court held that the appropriate remedy is to pursue a temporary injunction within the pending suit rather than grant the writ relief. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the petition at this stage but allowed the petitioner to file an urgency application for the injunction within two weeks, after which the matter would be heard within another two weeks. The petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ under Article 226 can be issued directing a land measurement exercise when a civil suit is pending.
- Whether the petitioner should seek a temporary injunction in the pending suit instead of relief through the writ petition.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 227
Subjects
- Writ petition
- Article 226
- Land measurement
- Trespass
- Temporary injunction
- Pending suit
- Urgency application
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 37346 of 2026
Ram Milan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dhirendra Kumar, Ulajhan Singh Bind
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authority to ensure
measurement exercise is carried out in respect of the land in question.
3. Petitioner seems to be aggrieved by the act and conduct of the
respondent Nos.- 4 & 5 in committing trespass otherwise interfering in his
possession.
4. It transpires from the record that petitioner has already instituted a suit
against these very private persons bearing O.S. No.- 603 of 2019 in which
he has also obtained direction from this Court on 19th January, 2024
passed in Matters under Article 227 No.- 10208 of 2023.
5. However, since petitioner is aggrieved for the act and conduct of
trespass being committed by the respondents or otherwise any
interference in his possession qua the suit land, it would be appropriate
for the petitioner to pursue the remedy for temporary injunction in a
pending suit and hence we decline to grant indulgence in the matter at this
stage.
6. However, liberty rests with the petitioner to move an urgency
application for disposal of pending temporary injunction application in
the suit and if he does so within a period of two weeks from today, his
WRIC No. 37346 of 2026
2
temporary injunction application shall be considered and disposed of in
accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties
concerned within a further period of two weeks.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands
disposed of.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
September 17, 2026
Atmesh
Digitally signed by :-
ATMESH KESARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…