HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31141 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Yash Padia, learned counsel for the respondents - Kanpur Development Authority (KDA). 2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following relief: "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/directing the respondent No. 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) within stipulated time as prescribed by this Hon'ble Court. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/directing the respondent No.3 to demarcate the land of the petitioner measuring area 0.205 hectares is the share holder of Khata No. 481 Araji No. 2.0520 hectares which is adjacent to the Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur Nagar." 3. At the very outset, Shri Yash Padia, learned counsel for the respondents – Kanpur Development Authority (KDA), has raised a preliminary objection qua the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that against the grievance relating to actual demarcation of holdings, the proper remedy lies under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with the U.P. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anand Kumar Chaurasia, Ashish Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Yash Padia Lavkush .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Revenue Code Rules, 2016. However, instead of approaching the competent forum/authority under the Code, 2006, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction to decide his representation. It is further contended that Rule 22 of the Rules, 2016 prescribes a detailed procedure, including the filing of an application along with the requisite fee, for seeking demarcation of land. Till date, the petitioner has not made any sincere efforts to seek demarcation of his holding in accordance with law. Thus, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer as has been prayed for, and the objection raised on behalf of the respondents, we are of the view that in case the petitioner invokes the remedy available under law within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, but certainly after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned stakeholders. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. September 16, 2025 NLY WRIC No. 31141 of 2025 2 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad