Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74556 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14510 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Kewal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking following relief :- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent No.2 (Up Zila Adhikari/S.D.M., Sadar, Maharaj Ganj) to ensure physical possession of petitioner and others over 1/3 part of arazi No.503, rakba 0.729 hect situated at village-Barwa Khurd, Tappa- Matkopa, Pargana-Haveli, Tehsil-Sadar, district-Maharaj Ganj so that the justice may be done. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2(Up Zila Adhikari/S.D.M.. Sadar, Maharaj Ganj) to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 12.03.2025 within stipulated period by a speaking and reasoned order so that the justice may be done; otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. (Annexure No.7)." 3. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel that dispute of the petitioner is with private respondent Nos.4 to 10 regarding property in question and, as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. 4. I have perused the averments made in the writ petition and the annexures annexed thereto. From perusal of the same, it is apparent that dispute of the petitioner is with private respondent Nos.4 to 10 regarding property in question. 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 :- 8.5.2025 Rishabh [Manish Kumar Nigam, J.] Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad