Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51792 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10298 of 2025 Petitioner :- Achhe Lal And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Bali Ram Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed for the following relief: "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos.2 to 4 to provide the possession of the petitioners over gata no.13sa, measuring area-0.1270 hectare, situated at Village-Durkhushi, Post- Mardah, Tehsil-Kasimabad, District-Ghazipur. B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to decide the application dated 06.01.2024 of the petitioners (annexure no.4 to the writ petition). C. Issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of petitioners for which they may be found entitled to under law." 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that patta was granted to the mother of the petitioner namely Sughari in the year 2009 which was duly approved and the mother of the petitioner was in possession over the land allotted to her. Name of mother of the petitioner was also mutated in the revenue record. After the death of the mother of the petitioner in the year 2018, name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record. In the year 2023, the petitioner was evicted by certain persons and in this regard complaint/representation has been submitted by the petitioner but no action has been taken by the respondent-authority. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that from the perusal of the averments as made in the writ petition, it is apparent that the dispute of the petitioner is with the private individuals. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not even impleaded the persons who has occupied the land of the petitioner illegally as alleged by the petitioner. 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. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as available to him under law. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 S. Singh (Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) Digitally signed by :- SAVITA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SAVITA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad