Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39971 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6626 of 2025 Petitioner :- Premnath Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mankapur, Gonda And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Divya Rai,Falak Kausar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Ms. Divya Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 3. 2. In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondents no.4 to 7 are dispensed with. 3. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed following reliefs :- I. That through the instant writ petition the petitioner is most respectfully praying the issuance of a Writ, Order or Direction in nature of 'CERTIORARI to quash the impugned order dated 18/03/2025 passed by O.P. No. 2 in online mutation bearing No. 2025818300931001608 which was mutated in the revenue records on 22/03/2025, (Contained as Annexure no.1) II. That through the instant writ petition the petitioner is also most respectfully praying the issuance of a Writ, Order or Direction in nature of 'MANDAMUS' commanding and directing the opposite parties not to transfer the possession of the land in question bearing gata number 632/0.450, 638/0.320, 639/0.850 situated at gram Itraur, pargana/tehsil- Mankapur, District Gonda during the pendency of the civil suit & other litigations pending between the private parties. 4. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is tenure holder of the lands bearing Gata No. 632/0.450, 638/0.320, 639/0.850 situated at Village Itraur, Pargana/Tehsil Mankapur, District Gonda and there were disputes in the said land which is pending in the courts. In this regard, para-7 of the writ petition is quoted as under:- 1. Original Suit No. 923/ 2020 titled as 'Premnath v. Nathuram for cancellation of deed along with Permanent Injunction pending before Learned Civil Judge (J.D.). II. Under section 38(1) U.P. Revenue Code 2006 pending before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mankapur-Gonda, titled as 'Premnath v. Nathuram'. III. Under section 207 U.P. Revenue Code 2006 pending before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mankapur Gonda, titled as 'Premnath v. Nathuram'. IV. Under section 212, 121 U.P. Revenue Code 2006 Premnath v. Ramteerath and others'. V. Under section 2686/20 Rambaran versus Amarnath and others' pending before Learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Gonda. VI. Original suit no.220/17 titles as 'State vs. Teerath' under section 323,504 I.P.C. which is cross case of assault between both parties under Police Station Mankapur, district- Gonda. VII. Original Suit No. 221/17 titled as 'State vs. Sanjay kumar and others' for under section 323,504 I.P.C. Police Station Mankapur, district- Gonda. VIII. Original suit no.227/24 titles as 'State vs. Teerath and others' under section 308, 504 I.P.C. Police Station Mankapur, district- Gonda. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, it has been submitted that the name of private respondents have already been mutated. 6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that in case, application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code has been allowed. The petitioner has efficacious remedy of filing an appeal. 7. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that it is on the basis of the mutation that the private respondents are trying to take possession of the disputed land. 8. Considering the allegations of the petitioner and also considering that several litigations are already pending between the parties before the Civil Court as well as the Revenue Court, it is open for the petitioner to take appropriate legal remedy with regard to the grievance raised in the present petition. The petitioner has numerous litigations which are already pending. This Court would not in its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would entertain such a matter. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved, he has efficacious remedy of filing an appeal. In case, the possession has been interfered, he has adequate remedy of approaching the court of competent jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, I do not find any ground for interference. Hence, the petition is dismissed. [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 14.7.2025 KR Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench