Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27050 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4775 of 2025 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Buddhi Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "I. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 i.e. District Magistrate, Kannauj to pass final order in the application dated 14.12.2024, filed by the petitioner for cancellation of illegal lease, in favour of private respondents." 3. I have perused the averments made in the writ petition and the representation annexed thereto, it is apparent that the dispute of the petitioner is with private parties. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the private persons with whom the petitioner has dispute, has not been arrayed as respondents in the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the patta granted to the private parties is not in accordance with law. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 has considered a large number of its earlier judgements and held that writ petition is not the proper remedy in respect of the property dispute and the party should be relegated to seek appropriate remedy before the Civil or Revenue Court. Paragraph nos. 64 and 65 of the judgment in Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra) are extracted hereinbelow-: "64. However, this Court unfortunately discerns that of late there is a growing trend amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petition in cases of pure property disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of a decree, in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant and also in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed questions of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes. In some cases the High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain petitions under Article 227 over such disputes and such petitions are treated as writ petitions. 65. We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals writ court should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority." 7. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as available to him under law. 9. However, it is provided that in case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the lease granted in favour of the private parties, he has remedy of filing an application for cancellation of the same. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Ved Prakash (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad