Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132535-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26238 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Pandey,Ratnakar Pandey,Shrawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners by means of present writ petition has prayed for following relief: "A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus command the respondents forthwith to not interefere in the peaceful possession of the pakka house and shop in question of the petitioners which is built on the gata no.323/1 situated in Kasba Khanpur, tehsil and district Auraiya, during pendency of the present writ petition. B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus command the respondents forthwith to restore the possession of the petitioner over the pakka house and shop in question in the previous position which was built on the gata no.323/1 situated in Kasba Khanpur, tehsil and district Auraiya, during within stipulated period fixed by this Hon'ble Court." C. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus command the respondents forthwith and restrain from the demolish of the rest pakka house alongside shop of the petitioners gata no.323/1 situated in Kasba Khanpur, tehsil and district Auraiya during the pendency of the present writ petition." 3. The claim of the petitioners is that father of the petitioner purchased gata no.323/1 situated in Kasba Khanpur, Tehsil and District Auraiya by registered sale deed dated 16.08.1978 from one Gayadeen son of Kewal. It is contended that thereafter the petitioners got constructed a house over the land and they are in settled possession over the land. It is further submitted that in the year 2022 the respondent nos.6 & 8 demolished part of the house without following proper procedure for demolishing the house and in the aforesaid backdrop petitioners have prayed for aforesaid reliefs. 4. A pointed query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioners whether the name of the petitioners or the name of their father was recorded in the revenue record. He submits that neither the name of their father nor the name of petitioners were recorded in the revenue record. However, he submits that since the petitioners' possession is settled over the land, therefore, they cannot be evicted except in accordance with law. 5. Be that as it may, the question as to whether the petitioners are in settled possession and have a right over the suit property can be decided only on the basis of pleading and evidence on record inasmuch in the instant case, neither the names of the petitioners nor their father have been recorded in the revenue record, therefore, the petitioners have to seek declaration in respect of their title over the suit property. The petitioners can also claim the relief of injunction on the basis of possession that since they are in settled possession, therefore, they cannot be evicted except in accordance with law by the competent Court. 6. In such view of the fact, we are not inclined to grant the prayer sought by the petitioners and the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy available in law. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Mohit (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad