HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 15647 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following relief:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the illegal encroachment from the property of the petitioners bearing Gata no. 441 situated at Village - Sherpur Mustkim, Tehsil- Dhanaura, District- Amroha and demolish the illegally constructed telecommunication/mobile tower and shops from the said property of the petitioners. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representations given by the petitioners. iii. To award litigation cost." 3. From perusal of the writ petition, it appears that there is dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents no. 6 and 7. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute is essentially between the petitioner and respondent no. 7 who has died now. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 7 who has died had executed an agreement with the respondent no. 3 to 5 for installation of mobile tower. It is further submitted that the agreement executed by respondent no. 7 was without any authority under law. Since the dispute as Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mahendra Kumar Maurya, Vicky Rastogi Counsel for Respondent(s) : B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi, Balendra Deo Misra, C.S.C. Sri Thakurji Maharaj Virajmaan Mandir Lala Sahab Singh And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) to whether the respondent no. 7 who is no more now, could execute an agreement in favour of respondent no. 3 to 5 is a question of fact and whether the said agreement shall continue to exist after the death of respondent no. 7 between the respondent no. 7 and respondent no. 3 o 5 is a question of fact which cannot be determined by this Court in exercise of power under Section 226 of Constitution of India as the said question is determined only on the basis of evidence on record. 6. In such view of the fact, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail other alternative remedy available under the law. October 6, 2025 Anjali WRIC No. 15647 of 2025 2 (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad