Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43140 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6934 of 2025 Petitioner :- Seema Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalji Yadav,Vishnu Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Lalji Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the State- respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with following prayers:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite party No.4 to pass an appropriate order in pursuance of the report dated 17.6.2025 submitted by Area Lekhpal upon the application dated 13.6.2025 moved by the husband of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure No.6, to this writ petition. .." 3. It is on the application of the petitioner dated 13.6.2025, which has been annexed as Annexure No.5, some report has been submitted by the Lekhpal which is sought to be complied by the petitioner. A perusal of the application clearly indicates that the dispute pertains to gata No.373 (Kha) area 0.126 hectare situated at Village Harnahar, pargana- Rampur, Tehsil Lalganj, District Pratapgarh on which the petitioner claims to be having transferable rights wherein a co-tenure holder is obstructing the petitioner from raising constructions and in this regard he has sought a prayer for restraining the said co - tenure holder, namely Shiv Kumar Upadhyay from interfering in his right to possession and raising constructions. 4. From perusal of the application it is clear that the the dispute is a private dispute between the petitioner and co-tenure holder Shiv Kumar Upadhyay and even the said Shiv Kumar Upadhyay has not been made a party in the present writ petition and only the authorities of the State have been made parties and, in fact, the petitioner is seeking an order of injunction restraining Shiv Kumar Upadhyay from interfering in the possession. 5. The relief as sought by the petitioner is clearly a civil dispute between the private parties for which the remedy is not under Article 226 but to initiate suit proceedings before competent authority where it is open for the petitioner to move appropriate application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the relief as sought by the petitioner is not maintainable in exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate suit and seek the remedies as sought by him. 6. Subject to aforesaid direction, no ground is made out for interference in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 28.7.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench