HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11402 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Sri Jageshwari Prasad Mathur, learned Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.3 is taken on record. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. An objection has been raised by the learned Standing counsel and counsel for the respondent no.3 to the effect that the prayer as claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted. In case, if the petitioner has any grievance in so far as the entries are concerned he has adequate statutory remedy under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and for the said reasons, the writ petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner responding to the said objections has urged that in so far as the plot no.67 is concerned, it is urged that the authorities have fudged with the entries relating to the plot no.69 and it is said to have been gifted/transferred to Indus Kleed Export Pvt Ltd in an illegal manner and mutation order dated 19.12.2017 has also been passed. It is urged that the petitioner has brought the aforesaid facts to the notice of the authorities and the copy of the same has been brought on record as Annexure no.1 and it is urged that none of the authorities have taken note of it, in such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the mandamus as prayed for. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ravi Kumar Verma, Anmol Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Puneet Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, apparently, what this Court finds that the petitioner is aggrieved in so far as the transfer of some part of plot no.69 is concerned which as per the petitioner was recorded as grove. Be that as it may, the petitioner ought to have invoked the appropriate provisions for ventilation of his grievance, if he has any right. In so far as the plot of the petitioner bearing no.67 is concerned, apparently, there is no encroachment or infringement of the right of the petitioner. The petitioner can only seek a mandamus, in case, if there is violation of any positive duty relating to an act of omission or permission by State authorities which impact the petitioner. Admittedly that is not the case here. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the clear opinion that the instant petition at the behest of the petitioner is not maintainable and the petition is, accordingly, dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to take appropriate measures as provided in law. November 28, 2025 Harshita. WRIC No. 11402 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench