Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133120-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26063 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharmendra Singh Chauhan Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri V.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the State respondents and Sri D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority. 2. The instant writ petition is preferred inter-alia with the following main reliefs:- "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent development authorities to take necessary/appropriate action with regard to illegal constructions of respondent no.6 and also direct the respondents to demolish the same in pursuance to the order dated 24.05.2024 passed by respondent no.3; ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restrain the respondent no.5 to register/execute any further document of the Khasra no.783M situated at Navgaon,Tehsil and District Mathura; iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the parties to maintain status-quo on the land in question;" 3. Learned counsel for the respondents have raised two fold submission on the maintainability of writ petition firstly, the petitioner has himself instituted a partition suit under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and till date the boundaries are not settled and the petitioner had filed a complaint against respondent no.6, under Section 27(1) of the Act, 1973, who was raising certain construction, which has been entertained by the authority itself and proceeded to take action against respondent no.6. Secondly, learned Single Judge has already expedited the proceedings under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code. They submits that the instant writ petition is preferred only to use pressure tactics to expedite the proceedings. 4. Considering the factual situation, we are not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition. Suffice to indicate, learned Single Judge has already expedited the proceeding under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code. Sofar as the complaint against the private respondent is concerned, the same has already been entertained by the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority and the proceedings are going on against him in accordance with law. 5. The instant writ petition is, accordingly, disposed off. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 S.P. (Prashant Kumar, J.) (M. C. Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad