Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:58876 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36413 of 2024 Petitioner :- Rinku Devi Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Srivastava,Priyanka Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Avinash Chandra Srivastava,C.S.C. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:- "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 28.1.2020 passed by respondent no. 3 as well as impugned order dated 12.8.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 by means of which the order impugned dated 28.01.2020 has been affirmed. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 to not dispossess the petitioner from Arazi No. 159 area 0.1282 hectare situated at Village Chhikau, Tehsil Tundla, District Firozabad in the grab of order dated 28.01.2020 passed by respondent no. 3 as well as order impugned dated 12.8.2024 passed by respondent no. 2." 3. A perusal of impugned order dated 28.01.2020 which is an order passed in proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, reflects that proceedings were started against the petitioner in view of a report of unauthorized encroachment and construction over part of Plot No. 160, total area of which is 0.207 hectares and the part found in the petitioner's possession was 0.0182 hectares, in which a house had been constructed. The order reflects that demarcation was carried out at the said plot in presence of villagers and it was found that encroachment has been made by the petitioner on that land. It appears that, thereafter, an appeal under sub-section (5) of Section 67 of the Code, 2006, was filed by the petitioner before Collector. By the impugned order dated 12.8.2024, the appeal was dismissed. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the house of the petitioner is exclusively made on Plot No. 159 and no part of that house is encroaching over Plot No. 160 and, therefore, the impugned orders are erroneous. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that the area of Plot No. 160 was demarcated by the Revenue Officials and, thereafter, the report was submitted to the Competent Authority regarding the encroachment made by the petitioner and thereafter the impugned orders were passed. 6. After perusal of record, I find that even in the grounds of appeal taken by the petitioner in the manner of appeal, a categorical ground has been written that they are in possession of Plot No. 159 over which their construction exists and that no construction or encroachment has been made on Plot No. 160 which is land reserved for playground, that is Gaon Sabha land. This Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not enter into disputed questions of fact as is sought to be raised by the petitioner in the instant petition. Admittedly, the action is being taken by the respondent with respect to the alleged encroachment made over plot no. 160 with regard to which the petitioner admittedly has no concern. As a corollary, the petitioner cannot be aggrieved by the impugned orders insofar as they seek her eviction from Plot No. 160. 7. Under the circumstances, I do not see this case as a fit case for interference in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. 8. This order has been passed in presence of learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 A.P. Pandey (Jayant Banerji, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad