Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79564 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42819 of 2024 Petitioner :- Om Prakash And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla,Subedar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Avinash Chandra Srivastava,C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the representation of petitioners dated 03.07.2024 by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). (B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the land bearing Khasra No.45 area 6 acre situated in Village Anyour, Tehsil Sadar, District Mathura." 3. Perused the representation filed by the petitioners, which is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. It appears that possession of the petitioners over their land is being disturbed by the private respondents. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that those persons against whom the allegation has been made, have not been impleaded as party in the writ petition. 5. From the perusal of the writ petition as well as the representation which is being sought to be decided in this writ petition, it is apparent that the dispute of the petitioners is with the private individuals, who have not been impleaded as party in the present writ petition. 6. 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. " 7. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as available to him under law. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad