Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87698 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16700 of 2025 Petitioner :- Raj Bahadur And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Azad Rai,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 for the following reliefs:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to gave/deliver the the possession over the Arazi No. 356 and Arazi No. 354 situated at Village Shahpur, Pargana Kewai, Tehsil Handiya, District Prayagraj to the petitioners. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to take appropriate action over the application of the petitioners dated 26.10.2024 and 30.12.2024." 3. Earlier an order under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was passed in the year 2018 and after demarcation boundary pillars were installed. The boundary pillars installed after the demarcation were uprooted by the private respondents. The petitioners approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.18172 of 2024 which was disposed of on 1.10.2024. On the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners that no cause of action was survive, the writ petition was disposed of. Now the petitioners want that possession of the land in dispute be given to the petitioners which is admittedly possession of respondent nos.5 to 10. 3. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel that the dispute of the petitioners is with the private respondents regarding property in question and as such writ petition is not maintainable. 4. I have perused the averments made in the writ petition and the annexures annexed thereto. From the perusal of the same, it appears that the dispute of the petitioners is with private respondents. 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 petitioners to avail the remedy as available to them under law. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 S. Singh (Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) Digitally signed by :- SAVITA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad