HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8328 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Ms. Deepanshi, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the State-respondents to comply with the order dated 18.09.2002 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Faizabad Division, Faizabad and restrain respondent NO. 5 from encroaching upon the disputed land. 3. A perusal of the order dated 18.09.2002 passed in Revision No. 1299 U/S 333 of U.p.Z.A. & L.R. Act, this Court finds that the petitioner had filed a revision agaisnt the order dated 23.04.1998. The petitioner had sought protection U/S 123 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and wanted rights over the disputed land which has been recorded as an abadi and over which the petitioner had constructed a house. 4. The provisional authority has found that the said land is a public utility land which is recorded as an abadi and accordingly petitioner cannot be granted protection U/S 123 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, according to which where any person referred to in sub-section 3 in Section 122-C has built a house on any land referred to in sub-section 2 of that section, not being land reserved for any public purpose, and such house exists on May 13, 2007 the site of such house shall beheld by the owner of the house on terms and conditions as may be prescribed. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pankaj Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ram Roop Singh (Deceased) Thru. Legal Heir Prashant Pratap Singh .....Petitioner(s) Addl. Commissioner Administration, Faizabad Division, Faizabad And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Accordingly once the said land is recorded as an abadi then the protection of the said section was not available to the petitioner. 6. The revisional authority further granted limited protection to the petitioner against demolition of his house other than in accordance with law. There is no averment that any authority or person is trying to demolish the house of the petitioner and consequently this Court does not find any ground to pass any directions to the State-respondents. 7. With regard to the allegations of the petitioner that respondent No. 5 is trying to encroach upon the said property, this Court finds that it is a private dispute for which writ proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India would not be maintainable and the petitioner can approach the court of competent jurisdiction to seek the relief against any private individual. 8. Subject to the aforesaid observations, this Court does not find any ground for interference, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. September 2, 2025 Ravi/ WRIC No. 8328 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench