Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2844-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 318 of 2025 Petitioner :- Babu Ram Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Ji Trivedi,Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. Heard. Perused the memo of the writ petition, especially the relief clause. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition bearing Writ C No. 10614 of 2024 which was dismissed on 12.12.2024 in the following terms:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-opposite parties no.1 to 4 and Sri Dilip Kumar Padney, learned counsel appearing for Gram Sabha. 2. Considering the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to opposite party nos.6 to 8 is dispensed with. 3. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 4. The petitioner seeks following reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to restrain for construction of Pakka Khadanja over the sahan land bearing residential House NO.851 its measurement 89 x 55 Ft. (approx) situated in Village and Post Bhatpur, Police Station Atrauli, District Hardoi, in the interest of justice. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no.5 to reconstruct the dismantled 8 pakka pillars or to pay the compensation for reconstruction purpose, in the interest of justice." 5. There appears to be some dispute with the private opposite parties. We cannot go into such issues of title or possession pertaining to Sahan land as has been raised herein. The petitioner may avail other remedies as may be prescribed in law. 6. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed." It is evident that the representation of the petitioner dated 27.12.2024 is in respect of the same subject matter which was the subject matter of the earlier writ petitioner. In our order dated 12.12.2024, it is very clear that we had declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that it was a private dispute between private parties, and this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go into issues of title or possession pertaining to Sahan land, as had been raised therein, however, with the caveat that the petitioner may avail other remedies, as may be prescribed in law. On being confronted, Shri Ram Ji Trivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner having a standing of more than 30 years at the Bar says that the application was submitted in compliance of the earlier order of this Court quoted hereinabove. Our order is self- speaking and does not lend itself to any such understanding or interpretation. This plea has been made only for being rejected. The petitioner has now filed this petition seeking disposal of his application submitted to the District Magistrate. He has not been able to point out under which law, the application in such circumstances in maintainable before the District Magistrate in the format in which it has been filed. The petition is absolutely ill-advised and it is an abuse to the process of the Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs. 21,000/-. The cost shall be deposited in the Registry within one month, failing which, the Registrar shall issue a recovery certificate for recovery of the same as arrears of land revenue. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 Lokesh Kumar [Brij Raj Singh, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench