Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141297-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27755 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ganesh Maddheshiya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankur Jaiswal,Sangam Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. The instant petition has been filed for the following relief:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities not to interfere in the peaceful construction over the bhumidhari land of the petitioner i.e. portion of Gata No. 48 having an area 0.00624 hectare situated at Jamindurga (Chiraiyakot), Tehsil Mohammadabad, Mau." 2. The case of the petitioner is that his mother purchased a piece of land through a sale deed. The property, which is subject matter of sale, is alleged to be Gata No. 48 area 0.00624 hectare. After the death of his mother, the petitioner and his brother are stated to be in possession of the same. The further case of the petitioner is that he tried to construct a house over the said land but at this stage, respondent no. 6 i.e. Vijay Kumar Upadhyay stopped the constructions with the help of local police. The petitioner claims his deceased mother to be bonafide purchaser of the subject land and according to him, the police has no right to interfere in his possession. In paragraphs No. 11, 12 and 13 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated as to how the property had devolved and ultimately sold to the mother of the petitioner. It is also alleged that there was a dispute in relation to the same property between Kashi through whom the property had devolved to the vendor of the mother of the petitioner and sons of Ramnath. It resulted in a civil suit which was ultimately decided in favour of Kashi. Thereafter, Rajkishor and others filed second appeal before this Court and it was dismissed. A review application is also stated to have been filed and it was dismissed for want of prosecution. It is further stated that a restoration application to restore the review application, was also filed, which too was dismissed. Again recall application was filed alongwith substitution application. It is alleged in paragraph no. 24 of the writ petition that respondent no. 4 has got no right to interfere in the right of the petitioner to raise constructions merely on the basis of a questionnaire obtained from this Court regarding pendency of the delay condonation application and other misc. applications. The petitioner is stated to have made complaint to various Administrative Authorities and it is stated that a detailed report was submitted on 17.7.2025 and still no action is being taken by the Administrative Authorities against respondent no. 6. 3. We have gone through the report dated 17.7.2025 and it clearly mentions that the respondent no. 6 is claiming right in the subject land alleging it to be his ancestral property and have therefore refused to intermeddle in the dispute. 4. It is clear from the averments made in paragraph 24 of the writ petition that the obstruction, if any, is being caused by private respondent no. 4 and there is no evidence on record that any interference is being caused by any authority. Infact, the representation reveals that the petitioner is seeking intervention of State- respondents in restraining respondent no. 4 from interfering in raising of construction by the petitioner. 5. We find that apart from dismissal of suit of sons of Ramnath, there is no positive direction of any court in favour of the present petitioner restraining the private respondent from raising constructions. 6. Concededly, the petitioner was not party to the previous suit and therefore, how the petitioner could be said to have stepped into the shoes of defendants of previous case, needs a fact finding enquiry. 7. In such view of the matter, we decline to examine the aforesaid issues and refrain from issuing any order which may have the affect of prejudicing the right of a private individual without proper fact finding inquiry. 8. The writ petition is, consequently, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy in common law or approach such other authority, as may be advised. . (R.M.N. Mishra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Dhirendra/ Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad