Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7737 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shakeel Khan And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. P.W.D. Lko. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd.Altaf Mansoor,Lakshmi Kant Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. C.S.C., and perused the record. By way of this petition the petitioners have mainly prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, commanding the respondents not to take any coercive action, including demolition, sealing, or removal of the shops, mosque (Masjid), Eidgah, and graveyard (Kabristan) situated at Mohalla Raza Nagar (Tandwan), Bhinga, District Shravasti, during the pendency of the present writ petition. He has further prayed for issuance of an interim order staying the effect and operation of the impugned notice dated 15.05.2025 and restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession, use, and occupation of the above- mentioned religious and charitable structures and commercial shops of the petitioner institution, till the final disposal of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he will confine his relief, as framed in the writ petition, only to the shops of which the petitioners are tenants, however, we fail to understand as to why the owner has not come forward. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners informs that, in fact, the owner had come to court vide Writ-C No. 6374 and 2025, which was disposed of on 08.07.2025, in the following terms: "Heard. The petitioners have already submitted a detailed reply to the impugned notice dated 15.05.2025, which is for removal of encroachment on roadside land. Let such representation/objections of the petitioners be considered by the opposite party No.6 and a decision be taken thereon, only thereafter further proceedings/actions be taken. Writ Petition stands disposed of. " When the said order is already there in respect of the same premises/shops of which the petitioners are tenants, we fail to understand as to why a separate order is required. That order will hold good for the premises of which the petitioners are tenants, if it is so, but without any independent right of the tenants beyond what the owner has, therefore, the owner’s objection would be considered, as already ordered and the consequences will follow accordingly as per law. It is made clear that this order will apply only in respect of the shops of which the petitioners claim to be tenants, if it so, and not to any other structure etc., mentioned in the relief clause, which stands modified in terms of the statement made by Mr. Mohd. Altaf Mansoor, learned counsel for the petitioners. With the above observations/directions, this writ petition is disposed of. (Manish Kumar, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 8.8.2025 A.Nigam Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench