Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101432-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13896 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ashok Jaiswal @ Ashok Kumar Jayaswal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Janardan Shukla,Nirendra Mohan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents. 2. In pith and substance, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction for a direction against the State respondents on the premises that without acquiring the land in question the petitioner's land has been utilised for the construction of police station. 3. While entertaining the writ petition on 05.05.2025, this Court had accorded three weeks' time to the State respondents to seek instructions in the instant matter. In response to the aforesaid order, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has filed the detailed instructions dated 24.06.2025 sent by the Station House Officer, P.S. Babhani, Distt. Sonbhadra, which has been taken on record. On the basis of said instructions, he states that the police station has been constructed with the consent of the original tenure holder, and the said entries have been recorded in the revenue records based on the order dated 21.05.2008 passed by the Record Officer in Appeal No.1218 of 2007-08 (State v. Jagdish Narain & Ors.) under Section 210 of L.R. Act. He further raised an objection that highly disputed facts have been raised in the instant writ petition. In case the petitioner is aggrieved with the intervention in his property, either by private party or even by the State, he has got the alternative efficacious remedy to approach to the competent civil or revenue Court. The said disputed facts cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Once an objection with regard to the maintainability has been raised, we observe that the core issue becomes as to whether in such facts, the writ petition is maintainable for enforcement of rights accrued out of disputed facts. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances where the ownership of the land in question is stated to be disputed, the petitioner and State respondents both claims to be the recorded owner of land on which police station has been constructed, the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked by constitutional courts and thus, the petition is devoid of merits. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the liberty to approach the civil court. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 SP/ Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad