Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19223-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35456 of 2018 Petitioner :- Mohd. Mobin And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohammad Khalid Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Petitioners are aggrieved by an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aligarh, dated 19.10.2018, which records that plot nos.22 and 23 were allotted in the Mini Industrial Estate, Ganjdundwara, District Kasganj in favour of respondent nos.5 & 6 and, therefore, petitioners' possession over such property is unauthorized. A further direction has been issued to evict the unauthorized occupant. Thus aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court. 2. Shri Rahul Agrawal alongwith Ms. Reema Pandey, learned counsels for the petitioners submit that private respondents and petitioners are real brother and that in fact the plots in question were allotted in favour of respondent nos.5 and 6 but the funds for such acquisition of plots were provided by the parents of petitioners and, therefore, the property cannot be treated exclusively to be owned by the respondent nos.5 and 6. It is submitted that in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the Sub Divisional Magistrate had directed private respondents to approach the competent forum if they were aggrieved by the petitioners' possession over the property in question. The private respondents were not satisfied and they approached the District Magistrate, who took note of relevant facts and made observations in favour of petitioners. Private respondents were permitted to approach District Industry Centre for allotment of other plots in their name. It is thereafter that the matter has been taken to the Commissioner by the private respondents wherein direction has been issued to evict the petitioners from the property in question. The order of the District Magistrate has also been set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.5 and 6, on the other hand, submits that petitioners not being the lessee have no right to continue in occupation of the property and, therefore, the direction issued by the Divisional Commissioner to oust the unauthorized occupant from the plots suffers from no infirmity. 4. From the facts placed on record it is apparent that lease in respect of plots in question have been executed by the competent authority in favour of respondent nos.5 and 6. Though petitioners are real brother of respondent nos.5 and 6 but neither they are lessees nor their rights over such plots have been recognized by any competent authority. So far as the order of District Magistrate permitting the petitioners to seek allotment in their name is concerned, it has already been set aside by the Commissioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners although places reliance upon the order of District Magistrate, Kasganj but such order appears to have been passed in ignorance of the fact that pursuant to allotment made in favour of respondent nos.5 and 6 registered lease deeds were also executed in their favour. These registered lease deeds continue to exist and have neither been cancelled nor modified. In such circumstances, the order passed by the District Magistrate, Kasganj, holding the petitioners entitled to continue over the plots is in apparent terms of the lease deeds and interference made with such order, by the Commissioner, does not merit any interference. 6. So far as the petitioners' right and possession with regard to plots based upon the argument that funds for the plots were provided by their parents, and unit was established by the petitioners are concerned, these are aspects which would require leading of evidence i.e. source of fund by which lease deeds were executed. These aspects can be gone into by the competent civil court. Adjudication of private rights of the petitioner viz-a-viz respondent nos.5 and 6 would not be permissible at the level of administrative authorities. 7. For the petitioners to succeed in respect of their claim, noticed above, they will have to obtain an appropriate declaration from the competent civil court. For protection of their possession also they will be at liberty to approach the competent civil court. Since, as of now, respondent nos.5 and 6 are recorded lessee, we refuse to interfere with the order of Divisional Commissioner recognizing their rights over the plots leased out to them. 8. Subject to the observations made above, this petition is consigned to records. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Ashok Kr. Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad