HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 30117 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J. HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and perused the record. 2. By means of the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in t he nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to remove the illegal construction of the road over Gata No. 2740/2 area 2.02 di. of village Surish, Pargana Ungali, Tehsil Shahganj, Jaunpur which belongs to the petitioner within stipulated period. (ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 3. In pith and substance, the petitioner is aggrieved by the encroachment made by the private persons over his property. 4. At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the instant petition by submitting that highly disputed facts are being pressed in the writ petition and in case petitioner is aggrieved with the intervention in his property, either by private persons or even the State, he has got the efficacious remedy to approach to the competent civil or revenue Court. The said disputed facts cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rishabh Kumar Pandey, Sandeep Kumar Agrahari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Amit Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Once an objection is raised, we find that the core issue is as to whether in such facts, the writ petition is maintainable for enforcement of such disputed rights, which are claimed against the private individuals or even against the State. 6. Normally, the settlement of dispute relating to property rights between the private persons or even against the State, the Same cannot be adjudicated or pressed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court that regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to the property rights. 7. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes for which remedies, under general law, civil or criminal, are available. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to adjudicate the matter. Needless to say, it is open to the petitioner to approach the competent civil/ revenue court. 9. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the writ petition stands disposed of October 29, 2025 A.K.Srivastava WRIC No. 30117 of 2025 2 (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad