HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6477 of 2025 Devki Nandan .....Petitioner(s)

Versus Shiv Dayal And 12 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shashank Verma, Gyanendra Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) :

Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Gyanendra Mishra , learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. On the oral request made by the petitioner, he is permitted to implead Smt. Ram Kumari, aged about 40 years wife of Rajesh Kumar R/o- Village Poore Baba Majre- Padrwan, Pargana- Siddhaur, Tehsil Haidergarh, District Barabanki as an opposite party no.14 to the petition.

3. By means of the present petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the District Judge, Barabanki in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2025 whereby, the District Judge has directed the parties not to raise any new construction on any part of land bearing Gata Nos. 259 and 260 situated in Village Sidhaur Khas, Pargana Sidhaur, Tehsil Haidergarh, District Barabanki and not to change the nature of the property.

4. The aforesaid proceedings were instituted on the basis of Suit No. 260 of 2025 passed in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.20, Barabanki by the opposite parties No. 1 -13 against the petitioner and the opposite party no. 14 qua a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute bearing Gata No. 259 measuring 0.7040 hectares situated in Village Sidhaur Khas, Pargana Sidhaur, Tehsil Haidergarh, District Barabanki.

5. The defendants filed their objections against the application for temporary injunction, stating that the plaintiff is owner in possession of land bearing Gata No. 259 measuring 0.7040 hectares. Towards East of the land in dispute bearing Gata No. 259, land bearing Gata No. 260 measuring 0.0140 hectares is situated. House of defendant No.2 Ram Kumari is constructed on a portion of land bearing Gata No. 260 and 261 and this portion is not adjacent to the land bearing Gata No. 259.

6. The defendant No. 1- Devki Nandan (the petitioner) has purchased a portion of land bearing Gata No. 262 through a registered sale deed and in possession of the said land. None of the defendants have made any efforts to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs over the land bearing Gata No. 259 and the plaintiffs have filed a suit with ulterior motive seeking injunction in respect of land bearing Gata No. 259 and in the garb of this relief, they are trying to illegally take possession in respect of a portion of the land bearing Gata No. 260.

7. The trial court has rejected the temporary injunction application by means of an order dated 10.07.2025 holding that the revenue authorities have already demarcated the western boundary of land bearing Gata No.

260.

8. The plaintiffs- opposite party nos. 1 to 13 , challenged the aforesaid order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the trial court by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2025, which has been allowed by the District Judge, Barabanki by means of an impugned judgment and order dated 15.09.2025 directing the parties to not to raise any new construction or to change the nature of lands bearing Gata Nos. 259 and 260 also.

9. From the pleadings as well as from the prayer made in the application for temporary injunction a copy whereof has been brought on record along with a supplementary affidavit. It is apparent that the plaintiffs have not sought any injunction in respect of land bearing Gata No. 260. It appears that the lands bearing Gata No. 259 and 260 have already been demarcated by the revenue authorities. In these circumstances, when the plaintiff is seeking injunction in respect of land bearing Gata No. 259 only, which already stands demarcated, prima facie there appears to be no justification in issuing an injunction in respect of land bearing bearing Gata No. 26