Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132698-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26003 of 2025 Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Subedar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sahab Tiwari Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Subedar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Fuzail Ahmad Asari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, and Sri Sahab Tiwari, learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam. 2. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed the following reliefs:- " (A) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents' authorities to demarcate the land of the petitioner, i.e., Gata No. 250, and the Chak road, i.e., Gata No. 248, prior to completion of the CC road. (B) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the authorities to pay the compensation to the petitioners in accordance with law of his excess land of Gata No. 250/0.3240 hectare, Village Aurangabad, Tehsil and District Mathura, on which road is going to be constructed by the Nagar Nigam, Mathura-Vrindavan. (C) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the authority to decide the petitioner's representation dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure No. 2) by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law...." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are recorded bhumidhars of Gata No. 250 (area 0.3240 hectare), situated in Village Damodarpura, Tehsil and District Mathura, which is adjacent to Gata No. 248 (area 0.0280 hectare), recorded as a Chakroad. Their land was separated from the Chakroad by a boundary wall constructed long ago by the father of the petitioners. A long-standing civil dispute exists with the adjacent landholders of Gata Nos. 247 and 248, and both Original Suit No. 878 of 1995 and Misc. Petition No. 4391 of 2015 are pending adjudication, with interim orders passed therein still in force. Despite this, under political pressure and without any acquisition process or lawful authority, respondent authorities demolished the boundary wall and commenced construction of a pucca road, not only over Gata No. 248 (Chakroad) but also encroaching into the petitioners' private land (Gata No. 250). Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that they made several representations to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Municipal Commissioner, and District Magistrate requesting demarcation and compensation, but no action was taken. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submissions has placed reliance upon the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Mathura, in response to the earlier Writ-C No. 7079 of 2023, wherein a direction was issued by the Division Bench to decide the representation of the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that thereafter Writ-C No. 13026 of 2025 (Suresh Chandra and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) was preferred, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.04.2025, granting liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh writ petition in case their grievance had not been addressed after an application seeking demarcation was filed and sufficient time had elapsed. He submits that in pursuance of the liberty granted by the Division Bench, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the aforementioned reliefs. 6. Sri Fuzail Ahmad Asari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, and Sri Sahab Tiwari, learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam, have raised objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on two grounds. They submit that highly disputed questions of fact are involved, and that Original Suit No. 878 of 1995 was filed by one Devi Singh against the petitioners, with the revisional court having passed an order dated 19.05.2015. They submit that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Mathura, had already passed a detailed order dated 24.02.2025, observing that the administrative authority cannot override proceedings pending before a competent civil court. It was also observed therein that the disputed land now falls under the Municipal Corporation, Mathura. 7. In this background, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Sahab Tiwari vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction, especially in relation to the alleged demarcation. They further submitted that the petitioners have not instituted any appropriate civil suit for injunction or damages against the Nagar Nigam, nor have they approached the competent revenue authority for demarcation. In the absence of such steps, no enforceable rights can be crystallised under writ jurisdiction. 8. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 9. Considering the chequered history between the parties as reflected in the order dated 24.02.2025, and the fact that the civil suit is admittedly pending adjudication, the petitioners' attempt to seek relief solely on the basis of demarcation before this Court is misconceived. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mathura, has already passed a detailed order, which warrants no interference by this Court. Suffice it to indicate that it is open to the petitioners to avail such remedy as is available under law. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 6.8.2025/pks Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad