HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 11055 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that two trees are standing over the plot of respondent no.4 the branches of which are hanging over the plot of petitioner. The petitioner wants removal of branches of trees to the extent it is hanging over the plot of petitioner. 3. The petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.23919 of 2024 which was disposed off by this Court by judgement and order dated 21.10.2024 directing the respondent no.3 to decide the representation of the petitioner. 4. The respondent no.3 by the impugned order has held that dispute raised by the petitioner is not within the competence of respondent no.3 to decide such dispute. Accordingly, respondent no.3 rejected the representation of the petitioner by order dated 28.02.2025 which order has been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 5. A specific query has been put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to under which provision of law, the respondent no.3 could exercise such power and issue a direction for removal of branches of trees which are hanging over the plot of petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner could not place any provision of law under which respondent no.3 could pass such orders. 6. Sri Vinay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.4 submits that Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Dutt Mishra, Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Vinay Kumar Mishra, C.S.C. Satya Prakash Tiwari .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) in fact the petitioner has encroached over the plot of respondent no.4 and in this respect, a suit has been instituted by the respondent no.4 against the family members of respondent no.4, and the question as to whether branches of trees are hanging over the plot of petitioner or not is a disputed question of fact which is to be determined in the suit instituted by the respondent no.4. In such view of the fact, it is submitted that writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not disclose the fact of institution of suit by the respondent no.4 in the writ petition. He submits that in the suit, petitioner is not a party and suit is also in respect of some other property. 8. Be that as it may, since learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the respondent no.3 as he could not point out any provision of law under which respondent no.3 could exercise its jurisdiction and issue a direction for removal of branches of trees hanging over the plot of petitioner, therefore, in such view of the fact, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. 9. Consequently, writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. September 24, 2025 Sattyarth WRIC No. 11055 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad