HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31483 of 2025 Court No. - 29 Sl. No. 22 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Shri Vijay Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Uttra Bahuguna, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State respondents, Shri Tejaswi Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 and 4 and Shri Anuj Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no 5 to 8. 2. By means of the instant writ petition the petitioner has prayer for a direction to the opposite parties no. 2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 to decide the representation dated 4.8.2025 in respect of reconstructed wall of Agrasen Vatika residential Society, Ghaziabad in the light of the judgement dated 23.9.2024 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 30368 of 2024 and judgement daed 1.7.2025 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12338 of 2025. 3. The petitioner claimed to be a resident of Flat No. SF-10 C Block Agrasen Vatika, Loha Mandi Extension, Bulandshahar Road, Ghaziabad and invoked the writ jurisdiction for a direction commanding the respondents to decide the representation dated 4.8.2025 in respect of the reconstructed boundary wall of Agrasen Vatika, Loha Mandi Extension, Bulandshahar Road, Ghaziabad. From perusal of the records we find that the respondent no. 9 has preferred a Writ Petition No. 12338 of 2025 (Anand Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and others). The said matter was heard Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vijay Praksah Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anuj Pratap Singh, C.S.C., Mahesh Narain Singh, Tejasvi Misra Kamlesh Sharma .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. And 8 Others .....Respondent(s) at length and finally disposed of on 1.7.2025 with a direction to the Ghaziabad Development Authority and the Executive Officer of U.P. State Industrial Development Authority. It was also observed that the authorities shall take into account any report submitted by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad in the light of the order dated 23.9.2024passed in Writ C No. 30368 of 2024 (Kamlesh Sharma V. The State of U.P. and others). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that in response to the said order the boundary wall has been constructed but as the respondent no. 9 had purchased the commercial plot and there is dispute of boundary wall between Agrasen Vatika, Loha Mandi Extension, Bulandshahar Road, Ghaziabad and the respondent no. 9 and though it is a residential apartment he is again trying to create some opening in the constructed boundary wall by putting pressure upon the authorities. It is further submitted that the petitioner has made a representation dated 4.8.2025 to the respondent no. 6 not to demolish the reconstructed boundary wall. 5. The relief is resisted by the respondents on two fold ground, firstly in the earlier writ petition a detailed order has been passed and in response thereof the authority acted upon and the boundary wall has already been constructed, secondly, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the private respondent no. 9 who is allegedly trying to demolish the boundary wall in question, then the remedy of the petitioner lies by filing civil suit requesting therein for grant of ad-interim injunction, which would be tested in accordance with law. 6. At this stage it cannot be permitted to re-agitate the issue in the light of the representation of the petitioner. Once common law remedy has been provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, then the petitioner should pursue the aforesaid remedy instead of running to this Court. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. September 17, 2025 o.k. WRIC No. 31483 of 2025 2 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad