Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135224-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9402 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shanti Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar,Lok Nath Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Devesh Vikram Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents and perused the material brought on the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India commanding the direction to the respondent- Authority to pay compensation to the petitioner of her property i.e. Arazi No.82 and Arazi No.83 situated at Village and Post Office- Hathigawan, Pargana Nawabganj, Tehsil- Soraon, District- Prayagraj. Alternatively, it has also been prayed restraining the respondents from making any construction over the property in dispute without conducting demarcation proceedings for separating the land of both the aforesaid Arazis. 3. A Division Bench of this Court, while entertaining the present case on 01.04.2025, directed that the matter be posted for further hearing and the Court also called for a personal affidavit from respondent Nos. 2 and 3, requiring them to specify the procedure they followed during the demolition, as well as the authority and legal basis under which the said demolition was carried out. 4. In response to the aforesaid order dated 01.04.2025 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, personal affidavit of respondent No.2 i.e. Assistant Police Commissioner, Soraon, Prayagraj has been filed wherein, it is pressed that it is not in dispute that petitioner is the owner of Arazi No.82 and Arazi No.83 situated at Village and Post Office- Hathigawan, Pargana Nawabganj, Tehsil- Soraon, District- Prayagraj. In the affidavit it is mentioned that petitioner and her family members continued to encroach upon the vacant land of gata No.82 by taking advantage of their adjoining land of gata No.83 and 81. It is also pressed in the affidavit that a Civil Suit i.e. O.S. No.479 of 2025 had already been filed by the petitioner before the Civil Court in which Amin report had been sought for and the same is also pending for consideration before the Civil Court. 5. Mr. Devesh Vikram Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents in this backdrop raised a preliminary objection qua the maintainability of writ petition on the ground that claims and counter claims have been set up before the competent Civil Court, wherein, the reliefs, as has been claimed for, can always be raised and adjudicated by the court concerned, as such, the writ petition may not be entertained by this Court. 6. In normal parlance, 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, as the parties have already approached the competent civil court, we are not inclined to adjudicate the matter. Needless to say, it is open to the petitioner to approach the competent civil court. 9. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Sachin Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad