Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74868 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39957 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sughar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar 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:- "i) Issue, writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to pass appropriate order directing the private respondent no. 4 to 11, not to interfere in construction of the petitioner over plot no. 127 measuring area 0.1980 hectare and also restrained them to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner on the basis of report dated 18.07.2024 submitted by revenue inspector before Tehsildar and forwared by Tehsildar to respondent no. 3 on 20.08.2024 on the application dated 15.07.2024 moved by the petitioner before respondent no. 3, ii) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of the mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 3 to take the appropriate action against the respondent no. 4 to 11 in pursuance of the application dated 15.07.2024 moved by the petitioner before respondent no. 3. iii) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of the mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 3 to decide the application dated 11.01.2024 of the petitioner pending before the respondent no. 3 within stipulated period fix by this Hon'ble Court." 3. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel that the dispute of the petitioner is with the private respondent Nos. 4 to 11 regarding property in question and as such writ petition is not maintainable. 4. I have perused the averments made in the writ petition and the annexures annexed thereto. From the perusal of the same, it appears that the dispute of the petitioner is with private respondent Nos. 4 to 11. 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 :- 8.5.2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad