HARPAL SINGH vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS — WRIC/5592/2026

Disposed: -- on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UPHC010780582026

Filing Number

WRIC/

Filing Date

05-Feb-2026

Registration No

WRIC/5592/2026

Registration Date

07-Feb-2026

Judge

Prakash Padia

Coram

Prakash Padia

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

Writs relating to Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006 and Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules 2016 ( 110400 )

Sub-Category

( 90 )

Judicial Branch

Civil WRITS

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--

Last updated 29-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HARPAL SINGH

    Adv. KRIPA SHANKER YADAV,MANISH DEV,MANISH DEV, ,MOHD SHAHANSHAH ALAM ANSARI,MANISH DEV

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

    Adv. ,C.S.C.,ARUN KUMAR PANDEY 1123

  2. 2.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AMROHA

    Adv. ARUN KUMAR PANDEY C.S.C.

  3. 3.ASSISTANT COLLECTOR IST CLASS/TEHSILDAR DHANAURA

    Adv. ARUN KUMAR PANDEY C.S.C.

  4. 4.GRAM SABHA/GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLGE RAHMAPUR MAFI TEHSIL DHANAURA

    Adv. ARUN KUMAR PANDEY C.S.C.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Prakash PadiaView PDF

    The Allahabad High Court allowed Harpal Singh's writ petition challenging an eviction order passed by the Tehsildar, Dhanaura. The court found that Singh had no encroachment on Gata No.58 (his house being on Gata No.60 since 1995), and consequently restrained respondents from interfering with his possession of Gata No.60 and set aside the Rs.30,840 damages imposed against him. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    —

    Prakash Padia

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    —

    Prakash Padia

  5. 25-Feb-2026

    —

    Prakash Padia

  6. 18-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 05-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WRIC/5592/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Allahabad High Court allowed Harpal Singh's writ petition challenging an eviction order passed by the Tehsildar, Dhanaura. The court found that Singh had no encroachment on Gata No.58 (his house being on Gata No.60 since 1995), and consequently restrained respondents from interfering with his possession of Gata No.60 and set aside the Rs.30,840 damages imposed against him. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case