BABOO LAL RAJPOOT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition for issuing a direction to the respondents to comply with the order dated 22.3.1988 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh district Agra and the order of the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Agra dated 23.7.1992 and the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 30.12.2005. No counter affidavit has been filed by the State of U.P., respondent no.1 and its authorities respondents no. 2 and 3. However, an impleadment application has been moved by Naresh Chand along with counter affidavit. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) It appears from perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as well as from the affidavit filed in support of impleadment application of Naresh Chand that there is some property dispute between Babu Lal and Naresh Chand. Babu Lal claimed the disputed property to be public way and it was alleged that encroachment upon that property had been done by Roshan Lal, Sharvan Lal, Deena and Mukesh etc. The order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh on 22.3.1988 for removal of these encroachment and obstructions was confirmed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 22.7.1992. Thereafter again an order was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 30.12.2005 for removal of these obstructions and since they were not removed, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) It appears from perusal of the counter affidavit filed in support of impleadment application of Naresh Chand that his father allegedly purchased the disputed property by registered sale deed and in the case under section 133 Cr.P.C. before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh he was not impleaded, and his brother Deen Dayal was impleaded, and so order for removal of constructions is not binding upon him. He filed a suit to this effect in the court of the Civil Judge ( Junior Division ) Agra ( Suit no. 371 of 1990 ) impleading the U.P. State as the defendant and that suit was decreed exparte restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the property. We are of the view that the concerned parties should seek their remedy before the courts concerned in accordance with the provisions of law and the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.