HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 20951 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the relief:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure the construction of petitioner over his plot Khasra no.239 area 201.39 sq. Gaj, situated at Mauja-Dhandhupura Chungi Bahar, Tehsil-Sadar, Agra restraining the illegal involvement of Land-Mafia & local police and also taking legal penal action against such erring persons. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2, 3 & 4 to consider and decide the claim of petitioner contained in representation dated 27.06.2025 for being ensured the construction of petitioner over his plot Khasra no.239 area 201.39 sq. Gaj, situated at Mauja-Dhandhupura Chungi, Bahar, Tehsil- Sadar, Agra restraining the illegal involvement of Land-Mafia & local police and also taking legal penal action against such erring persons. iii. Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. iv. Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner." 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is constructing a house over the plot purchased by him, and he is not obstructed by the original owner of the plot rather some unscrupulous elements are interfering with the construction of petitioner. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jigyasha Tripathi, Surendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Sanny Pratap Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. If that be so, the petitioner has other alternative remedy under the law, and writ petition is not the appropriate remedy inasmuch as the dispute of the petitioner is in fact against some private persons who according to petitioner are illegally interfering with the construction of petitioner. 5. In such view of the fact, the writ petition being misconceived is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail other alternative remedy available under the law. September 16, 2025 Sattyarth WRIC No. 20951 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad