Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121486-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22791 of 2025 Petitioner :- Seema Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gulrez Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vijay Bahadur Maurya Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1, Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 2. The petitioner by means of the present petition has prayed for the following relief:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to remove the entire encroachment made by the respondent no.3 on the road made in front of the petitioner house towards west on the road running from the east to west and ending at the house of the petitioner. ii. Issue any other writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. iii. Award costs to the petitioner from the contesting respondents." 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits the encroachment made by the respondent no.3 has already been demolished by the Nagar Nigam, prayagraj, respondent no.2, and there is no encroachment lying on the service lane which is in the West of the house of the petitioner as of today. 4. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner disputes that the respondent Nagar Nigam has not demolished the wall standing in the house of respondent no.3 on the service lane, but this fact has also been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent Nagar Nigam, and he submits that even that wall has also been demolished. He further submits that the petitioner has also encroached some land over service lane and has opened a door towards service lane which is not permissible in the bye-laws, and in this respect, a notice has been given to the petitioner. 5. Since, the stand of the Nagar Nigam that they have demolished the construction, therefore, no cause of action survives in the writ petition. 6. Since, the question as to whether demolition has been made or not is a question of fact which cannot be decided by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.If the petitioner still feels that the demolition has not been removed by the respondent Nagar Nigam, petitioner may avail appropriate remedy available in law. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs subject to the observation made above. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 NS (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad