Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35452-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5813 of 2025 Petitioner :- Saba Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue Deptt. Of Revenue Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Pratap,Saad Husain,Shashank Shekhar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents. 2. This is a second writ petition which has been filed seeking following main relief(s) - "(i) ISSUE a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing opposite party no. 2 to take legal action against opposite party no. 3 to 5 in accordance with law. it is content the annexure no.2 of this petition. (ii) ISSUE writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing opposite party nos. 2 to 5 not to dispossess the petitioner from her house on the basis of a forged compromise/agreement allegedly made before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate." 3. First writ petition i.e. WRIT - C No. 10381 of 2024 (Saba Khan Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others) was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2024, which reads as under :- "1. The allegation in the writ petition is that S.D.M., Mushafirkhana, District Amethi has dispossessed the petitioner. 2. Sri Raj Bux Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has instruction to inform the Court that an agreement was arrived at between the parties in a private dispute pertaining to the house in the presence of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, however, he is unable to point out the signature of the petitioner on the said agreement, moreover we also fail to understand as to what the business did the S.D.M. have to get such an agreement arrived at in her presence and what value such a compromise have in the eyes of the law, however, we find that prayer clause in the writ petition is not appropriate. We, therefore, grant liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition seeking appropriate relief against the official- opposite party but arraying the affected private opposite parties also. 3. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. 4. If any fresh petition is filed, the instruction received today by Sri Raj Bux Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall be placed before the Court on the date when the fresh case is taken up." 4. In terms of order dated, quoted above, the petitioner was under obligation to implead the affected private opposite parties also. The second writ petition is sheer disregard to the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by this Court, which has been filed without impleading the affected private opposite parties and as such, the petitioner cannot be permitted to avail the liberty granted by this Court. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 6. Needless to say, it is always open for the petitioner to avail the remedy, as available under the law. Order Date :- 13.6.2025 Mohit Singh/- E-Court Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench