Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31415 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6127 of 2025 Petitioner :- Tejendra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar 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 seeking following relief :- "issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents No.2 to 5 to restrain the Respondent no.7 not to interfere in peaceful possession of the Gata No.146, Area 0.4660 hectare including 0.0083 hectare, which is situated in Village- Shahbajpur, Tehsil- Chandausi, District- Sambhal in compliance of order dated 21.05.2024 passed by Respondent no.3 in Case No.6558 of 2024 (Tejendra Vs. Rinku and Others), under Section 116 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent no.2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 30.12.2024 expeditiously within stipulated period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 3. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel that dispute of the petitioner is with private respondent No.7 regarding property in question and, as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. 4. I have perused the averments made in the writ petition and the annexures annexed thereto. From perusal of the same, it is apparent that dispute of the petitioner is with private respondent No.7 regarding property in question. 5. 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." 6. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. 7. In case impugned order is passed and the Courts below are not complied with the order, petitioner has remedy of filing an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC or under Section 151 C.P.C. In case such an application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondent - authority, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks after ensuring service of notice upon all the respondents and after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties provided there is no other legal impediment. 8. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Rishabh [Manish Kumar Nigam, J.] Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad