SHITLA PD. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 9-7-1993 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and order dated 26-2-1993 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively and also for issuance of a writ of man damus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner.

3. Sri S. N. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Jangali and Har Nath and the learned Counsel for the petitioner agreed that the writ petition may be finally heard as such, the writ petition has-been heard finally at the stage of admission itself.

4. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner and respondent are co- sharers and the petitioners share is 1/2. The petitioner originally held plot Nos. 213/1, 145/1, 212/2, 214, 215/ (. . . sic), 658/2, 658/3 and 658/1. The grievance of the petitioner is that originally the plot No. 658 belongs to t he petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 wherein the share of the petitioner is 1/2. As per the s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document