Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79887 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38058 of 2024 Petitioner :- Radhika Chauhan Respondent :- State Of Up And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Singh,Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the Respondent No. 2 to decide the application dated 20.09.2024 moved by the petitioner, pending before him within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court." 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that an order under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was passed by the respondent no. 4 on 09.07.2024. In compliance of order dated 09.07.2024, land of the petitioner was demarcated and boundary marks were installed after demarcation. Soon thereafter, respondent no. 6 has illegally made encroachment over the land of the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner has made complaints to the revenue authorities. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that from the averments made in the writ petition, it is apparent that the dispute of the petitioner is with respondent no. 6 which is a private dispute and as such writ petition is not maintainable. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 has considered a large number of its earlier judgements and held that writ petition is not the proper remedy in respect of the property dispute and the party should be relegated to seek appropriate remedy before the Civil or Revenue Court. Paragraph nos. 64 and 65 of the judgment in Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra) are extracted hereinbelow-: "64. However, this Court unfortunately discerns that of late there is a growing trend amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petition in cases of pure property disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of a decree, in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant and also in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed questions of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes. In some cases the High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain petitions under Article 227 over such disputes and such petitions are treated as writ petitions. 65. We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals writ court should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority." 6. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as available to him under law. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Ved Prakash (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad