Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3083-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 322 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shivendra Nath Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kafiya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard. 2. This is a writ petition seeking disposal of certain applications referred in the relief clause which have been submitted to the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary (Revenue) and other higher officials seeking action against Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nautanva, District Maharajganj on account of passing of an order by him dated 30.11.2024 which according to the petitioner's counsel is based on incorrect facts and a wrong understanding of correct factual position and the legal position. 3. The order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate is not under challenge. In fact, the order in the concluding part says that because there is private/civil/revenue dispute between the private parties, therefore, he cannot take action on administrative side and he has referred to a Government Order dated 03.08.2022 as also that there are provisions in the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which enable the bhumidhar to seek possession of his land. 4. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that certain private parties had filed a suit for declaration under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, 1950 in respect of the land in dispute which was dismissed. An appeal was filed which was also dismissed. Thereafter, further challenge was made before the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed. A writ petition has been filed on 11.12.2024 which is pending without any stay being granted. 5. The petitioner's grievance is that in spite of the aforesaid the said private person is still in possession of certain land regarding which he had been claiming his rights and interest but was unsuccessful. 6. We see no reason to grant the mandamus as sought for in these proceedings, especially as, the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate is not under challenge, even otherwise for the grievance as noticed hereinabove as informed by the petitioner's counsel, the remedy is to seek possession by initiating process as may be prescribed in law. If the land is agricultural then obviously the remedy would be under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as has been stated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Merely because he may have mentioned some facts incorrectly in the said order is no reason for us to interfere in the matter, as, the petitioner himself has wrongly been pursuing the matter before the Sub Divisional Magistrate who does not have jurisdiction to grant any such relief of possession to the petitioner, especially as, the suit for declaration was not of the petitioner. We categorically asked the petitioner's counsel to show under which provision of law the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nautanva, District Maharajganj could have put the petitioner in possession on the land which in fact admittedly is in the possession of certain private persons, even if illegally, on the administrative side, but none could be pointed out. 7. Our observations will not come in the way of the petitioner in seeking appropriate remedy under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 or any other law. 8. The writ petition is dismissed. [Brij Raj Singh, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Order Date :- 17.1.2025 Santosh/- Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench