Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20439 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2360 of 2025 Petitioner :- Renu Sainy Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,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 seeking following relief :- "Issue a writ, Order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated. 28.10.24 passed by Respondent No.3 namely Tehsildar Madiyahoon District Jaunpur in miscellaneous proceeding, whereby the installation of the Tube well (Hand Pump) of the petitioner has been stopped on the ground of irrelevant pending proceedings before the civil court. B. Issue a writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent no.3 namely Tehsildar Madiyahoon and respondent no.2 Sub Divisional Magistrate Madiyahoon District Jaunpur to remove the Hindrance in installing the petitioner's Tube well (Hand Pump) so that the drinking water problem of the petitioner may be solved." 3. Brief facts of the case, as per stated in the writ petition, are that residential lease was granted to the petitioner of the land in dispute and petitioner is in possession over the said land. Name of the petitioner is also recorded in the revenue records. Because of widening of National Highway No.135, tubewell installed by the petitioner was to be removed and when petitioner tried to install the tubewell at another place, respondents No.5 to 7 interfered and did not permit the petitioner to install the tubewell. Aggrieved by the Act of private respondents, petitioner approached to respondent No.3 by moving an application on 19.10.2024. The report was submitted on the application dated 26.10.2024. Tehsildar Madiyahoon, District Jaunpur has rejected the application of petitioner by order dated 28.10.2024 for the reason that civil suit is pending between the parties and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 4. Perused the order dated 28.10.2024 which is at page 45 of the paper book. 5. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that civil suit referred in the report as well as in the order impugned does not relate the property in dispute and petitioner is not a party to the suit. 6. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel that the order dated 28.10.2024 has rightly been passed in a miscellaneous proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondents authorities have erroneously failed to grant relief to the petitioner. 8. From the averments, as made in the writ petition, it is apparent that dispute of the petitioner is with private respondents regarding installing of tubewell. 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." 9. Further, this Court in case of Writ C No. 14257 of 2024 (Phoolmati vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 11.11.2024 has held that the Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to interfere with the private dispute between the parties by means of an administrative orders without drawing any proceedings under the relevant provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 10. In my view, Tehsildar has rightly not interfered with the dispute and has passed the order that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 11. In view of these facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned and the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy, as available to him, under the law. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Rishabh [Manish Kumar Nigam, J.] Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad