HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9556 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondent nos.5 and 6 is dispensed with. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs :- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the opposite parties especially opposite party no.1 to 4 to consider the grievance of the petitioner and take appropriate action against the opposite party no.6 which is creating the illegal construction over the petitioner's land in question, in the interest of justice. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties especially opposite party no.1 to 4 to direct not to disturb in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question by the opposite party no.5 and 6, in the interest of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vidya Bhushan Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Suhel Ahamad .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate District Ambedkar Nagar And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) justice." 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he has filed a suit under Order 7 Rule 1 C.P.C. for partition of the house before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambedkar Nagar on 28.10.2017, which has been registered as Original Suit No. 867 of 2017. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. has also been preferred for grant of an interim injunction. This application has remained pending, although the suit is going on. Opposite Party No. 5, who is the real brother of the petitioner and also a defendant in the suit, is continuing to raise constructions during the pendency of the partition suit, despite being fully aware of its pendency, as he has filed his objections to the application for interim injunction. The petitioner moved an application on 28.08.2025 before the S.D.M., Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, praying for a direction to be issued to the S.H.O., Akbarpur, to look into his grievance. However, no action has been taken in this regard. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 5. The petitioner's partition suit is pending and no interim injunction has been granted in his favour. 6. It is evident that till such partition suit is decided or any interim relief is granted against the defendants, the defendants are also co- owners of every inch of the property in dispute; they can raise construction till they are injuncted in this regard by the competent court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 21.03.2024 in Writ C No. 2751 of 2024, Ashok Kumar vs. District Magistrate, Collector Barabanki and 6 Others, and submits that in a similar case, this Court directed the State Authorities to take appropriate action. 8. We have gone through the aforesaid order dated 21.03.2024, which is quoted hereinbelow: "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the WRIC No. 9556 of 2025 2 respondents/State. 2. Present writ petition filed by the petitioner is with regard to a dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents, who are interfering over the property in dispute. 3. Petitioner has a remedy of filing a suit for injunction as allegations are against private respondents. It shall also be open for the petitioner to file appropriate stay application in his suit which shall be considered and decided expeditiously in terms of administrative circular issued by this Court bearing No.CL No.24/Admn. G-II, dated Allahabad 16.8.2017. 4. With liberty to petitioner to file a suit before appropriate Court or to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with with law, present writ petition is consigned to record." 9. The order dated 21.03.2024 was passed in completely different circumstances, as is evident from a bare perusal of the same. 10. We do not find any merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. October 6, 2025 Ashish Dewal WRIC No. 9556 of 2025 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench