Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38937-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6343 of 2025 Petitioner :- Lucknow Christian Burilal Board Lucknow Thru. General Secretary Jagdeep Joseph And Another Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Culture New Delhi And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Shankar,Ved Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Namit Sharma,Ratnesh Chandra Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. Sri Naveen Chandra Upadhyay, Advocate has filed his power on behalf of the opposite party No.6 and Sri Himanshu Singh, Advocate has filed his power on behalf of the opposite party No.7, which are taken on record. Heard. Petitioners allege encroachment by the opposite party No.9 on a Cemetery, namely, Cemetery Kaiser Pasand, near Kaiser Bagh Bus Stop, Lucknow. They seek a direction to opposite party Nos.3 and 8 to take remedial measures. It appears that some suit was filed by the opposite party No.9, which was dismissed, thereafter first appeal was filed which was partly allowed, against which, a second appeal has been filed by the petitioners. It is stated that those proceedings did not relate to the encroachment, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, however, we find from the reading of judgments passed by the Civil Court that the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the opposite party No.6 in respect of a particular portion of the said Cemetery, namely, Kaiser Pasand Kabristan, which he claims to have acquired based on a lease executed by the petitioners, although the petitioners say that it is a fraudulent deed but the petitioners' counsel has not pointed out any proceedings initiated by the petitioners for cancellation of the lease deed. In fact at the stage of the first appeal it appears that some relief was granted to the opposite party No.9 in respect of that portion, against which, the second appeal is pending. Now these are all disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction, especially as, question of title and possession are involved and there is a second appeal pending. As far as the cause before the opposite party No.3 is concerned, if it is permissible for the petitioners to approach the opposite party No.3 during pendency of the second appeal and the subsistence of the first appellate order which has not been stayed in second appeal, he may approach the opposite party No.3 or seek such other remedies as may be permissible in law. As regards the other reliefs, the petitioners may avail other remedies, if permissible. Apart from it we cannot make any other observation nor issue any direction. Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench