HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 34949 of 2025 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J. 1. Mr. Shyam Surat Shukla, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, under challenge is notice dated 2nd September, 2025 issued by the Nagar Panchayat requiring demolition of his clients' house. Incorrect allegation of unauthorized construction has been made. He refers to page 22, bearing disclosure of document dated 22nd August, 1968. He submits, it is allotment of the land, on which grand-father of his clients, during his lifetime, made construction. On query he submits, statement has been made in paragraph 19, reproduced below. "19. That the petitioners grandfather got the possession in year of 1968 since then after his death of grandfather, the father of petitioners became owner and after death of father of petitioners became owner and after death of father of the petitioners, the petitioners are owner and in possession over the land in dispute. The pakka construction was raised by the father of petitioners who died on 23.7.2009, thus the construction already has been raised by the petitioners' father." 2. Mr. Shukla submits further, his clients filed civil suit. Application for temporary injunction was rejected. Appeal preferred therefrom was also rejected. His clients then petitioned to this Court under article 227. He draws attention to order dated 7th December, 2019 passed by the learned single Judge carrying direction of restraint. A paragraph of the order is Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prem Shankar Pandey, Shyam Surat Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ram Prakash Rai Bharat Singh And 4 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) reproduced below. "It is made clear that in case petitioner is in possession of land in dispute, he shall not be dispossessed without adopting procedure of law." The writ petition is still pending. He seeks interference. 3. Mr. G.C. Tiwari, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. Mr. Siddharth Kaushik, learned advocate holding the brief appears on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 (the Nagar Panchayat). He submits, the construction is unauthorized. The notice was duly issued. There be no interference. 4. While adjudicating a writ petition, the writ Court will not venture into disputed questions of fact. It appears, there is subsisting order dated 7th December, 2019 of the learned single Judge directing restraint against dispossession of petitioners. Whether the construction is new or it will or will not dispossess petitioners, this Court will not go into. The Nagar Panchayat must obtain remedy of either vacating the interim restraint order or having the writ petition itself decided in its favour, for it to proceed. As such, impugned notice cannot be sustained. It is set aside and quashed. 5. The writ petition is disposed of. October 28, 2025 Salim WRIC No. 34949 of 2025 2 (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Satya Veer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad