Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18580-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3064 of 2025 Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Gupta And Another Respondent :- Commissioner Prayagraj Mandal Prayagraj And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner's grievance is that opposite party nos.6 to 9 are in illegal possession of certain land having Gata No.1725 situated in village Antu, police station Antu, District Pratapgarh, which infact has been purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 05.06.2012. Now in 2025, this petition has been filed seeking a mandamus to opposite party nos.1 to 5, who are the official opposite parties to evict the opposite part nos.6 to 9 from the said land and possession of the land in question be handed over to the petitioner no.2, who is the exclusive owner of the same. The petitioner no.1 is the son of petitioner no.2. 3. Reliance has been placed upon some report of Sub Divisional Magistrate in this regard. We have perused the said report. We fail to understand as to under which law a mandamus could be issued of this nature. The dispute is between private parties. There are remedies available under civil/ revenue/ criminal law and instead of availing the same, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 4. At this stage, Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner states that if a public authority does not perform its duty then a writ petition is maintainable. Certainly it is so, but we are not aware of any law under which the Sub Divisional Magistrate could evict private persons from private property and hand over possession of it to the petitioner. We asked the learned counsel for petitioner categorically as to under which provision the Sub Divisional Magistrate has proceeded to prepare the report, he submitted that it has been prepared on the complaint of the petitioner. We further asked him as to under which provision the complaint was filed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, he could not give any categorical reply. We do not wish to say anything more which would prejudice the rights of the petitioner. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to avail any other remedy as available to him under civil/ revenue/ criminal law. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 3.4.2025 Arnima Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench