HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5886 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Shri Kapil Dev, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashish Chaturvedi and Shri Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents no.1 & 4 and Shri Dilip Kumar Pande, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. 2. In light of the proposed order, notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the present dispute pertains to the property situated at Plot No.3653, area 1.045 hectares and Plot No.3652, area 0.025 hectare situated at Village Uchahar, Pargana Salon, Tehsil Unchahar, District Raebareli. With regard to the said dispute, the litigation is going on between the petitioner and the respondent no.2, where the presently the suit for declaration on behest of respondent no.2 is pending consideration before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Unchahar, District Raebareli after being remanded by the Board of Revenue. 4. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent no.2 has published the advertisement to conduct Dussehra (Ram Leela) on the disputed land situated at Gata No.3653. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit for injunction was filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Raebareli and the same was decreed by means of judgment and order dated 18.10.2004. It has further been submitted that Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashwani Kumar, Ashish Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey, Girish Chandra Sinha Prakash Murarka .....Petitioner(s) Sub Divisional Magistrate, Unchahar, Raebareli And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) the same controversy had also been brought before this Court, where this Court in Writ Petition No. 6502 (MS) of 2005 had passed the following order which is extracted below: "Notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Issue notice to respondents 5 to 8 returnable at an early date. Learned counsel of the petitioner says that alternative land has already been identified and ear marked for holding Dushera Mela. Sri Vinai Jeet Lal Verma learned counsel for he State in presence of Tahsildar Sri Rajeev Uppadhya also confirms the aforesaid fact. In the meantime in view of the suit for Permanent injunction against the State of U.P. and S.D.M. Unchahar having been decreed on 18.10.04 and also in view of the fact the expert decree passed in the suit under section 229-B of U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act filed by Durga Pooja and Ramlila Samiti having been stayed in appeal, the respondents are restrained from occupying the land in question or disturbing the possession of the petitioner over the said land forcibly either for the purposes of Mela or for any other purpose till further orders of the court." 5. Accordingly, in light of the fact that the proceedings are still pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a prayer to direct the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Unchahar, District Raebareli to decide the application preferred by the petitioner on 15.09.2025 in Case No.117/2003-2004, Computerized Case No.T200410580700001 (Durga Puja and Ram Leela Samiti versus Prakash Murarka). 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the only apprehension expressed A227 No. 5886 of 2025 2 by the petitioner is that under the grab of holding Dussehra Festival, respondent no.2 shall change the status quo and alleges that they may by this method obtain possession on the disputed land. 7. From various pleadings which are on record, I find the the issue pertaining to possession of the said land is disputed between the parties inasmuch as I find that in the suit proceedings under Section 229-B, the opposite party no.2 has clearly stated that he is in possession, while on the other hand, the petitioner claims that he is in possession on the disputed land. 8. Be that as it may, this Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could not enter into the disputed question of fact which is left to be adjudicated in suit proceedings by the Sub Divisional Magistrate but considering the apprehension expressed by the petitioner and also the fact that he has already preferred an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, before whom the entire material is available and all the parties are appearing, it is expected that the he shall decide the said application with expedition in accordance with law after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties. 9. Accordingly, let application be decided with expedition within ten days from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before him in accordance with law after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. September 24, 2025 KR A227 No. 5886 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench