Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61206 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30612 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt. Kaisari Bano Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. Heard Shri Rajesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for private respondent No.5 and Shri Nand Lal Maurya, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 2. This Court vide order dated 19.03.2025 granted time to the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter. 3. Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions dated 15.04.2025 received from learned Sub Divisional Officer, Handia, Prayagraj states that the order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Handia, Prayagraj under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been implemented on 08.09.2024. He further submits that since the order dated 07.01.2022, as contained in Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition, has already been complied with and the illegal constructions have been removed, therefore, nothing is left to be adjudicated upon on behalf of respondents in the pursuance of the order dated 07.01.2022. Learned Standing Counsel further states that dispute is purely private in nature and, as such, the instant writ petition is not entertainable. 4. Relevant paragraph of the instructions dated 15.04.2025 is being reproduced hereinunder:- "1- ययचच कक शरच बयनन दयरय मय० नययययलय मम पततवयदच ससखयय 3 दयरय पयररत आददश तदनयसक 07.01.2022 कय अननपयलन करययद जयनद कद समबनध मम यनजजत कक गयच हक। 2- गयम पपडन परगनय मह तहसचल हसतडयय कक आरयजच ससखयय 336 ग रकबय 0.0910 हद० मनमतयज अहमद पनत अबदनलय कद नयम वतरमयन खतपनच मम दजर हक। जजसकक पकमयइस हदतन उ०प० रयजसव ससतहतय 2006 कक धयरय 24 अनतगरत वयद ससखयय टच 201702323042313 मनहचबउलय बनयम गयसवसभय आतद पततवयदच ससखयय 3 कद नययययलय मम यनजजत कक गयच थच। जजसमम नययययलय दयरय तदनयसक 01.11.2019 कन मपकद पर यथय ससथतत बनययद रखनद कय आददश पयररत तकयय गयय। 3- उक वयद मम यथयससथतत बनययद रखनद कद आददश तदनयसक 01.11.2019 कद पयररत हननद कद बयद मन० इबयतहम पनत मनहचबउलय आतद ( वयररसयन ममतक मनहचबउलय / पततवयदच ससखयय 5) कद दयरय अवमयननय करनकद तववयतदत भभतम पर चहयरदचवयरच कय तनमयरण तकयय गयय। 4- पततवयदच ससखयय 5 दयरय तकयद गयद चहयरदचवयरच तनमयरण कद तवरद पततवयदच ससखयय 3 कद नययययलय दयरय आददश तदनयसक 07.01.2022 पयररत तकयय गयय। जजसकय सयरवयन असश तनमनवतत हकह- " वयदच पक मन० इबयतहम आतद ( वयररसयन ममतक मनहचबउलय) कद दयरय यथयससथतत बनययद रखनद कद समबनध मम सवयस पयप तकयद गयद आददश तदनयसक 01.11.2019 कक अवमयननय करकद तववयतदत भभतम पर तवजध तवरद चहयरदचवयरच कय तनमयरण तकयय गयय हक। आपजत कतयर मन० मनशतयक कद पयथरनय पत तदनयसक 20.10.2021 व 25.11.2021 कन सवचकयर करतद हहए तववयतदत भभतम पर सथगन आददश हननद कद बयवजभद तवजध तवरद तकयद गयद अवकध तनमयरण कययर कन हटययद जयनद कय आददश पयररत तकयय जयतय हक। तहसचलदयर हसतडयय एवस थयनयधयक उतरयसव कन आददश कय पयलन करयनद हदतन आददश कक पमयतणत छयययपतत पदतषत कक जययद।" उक वयद मम पततवयदच ससखयय 3 कद नययययलय दयरय असततम आददश तदनयसक 17.10. 2022 पयररत तकयय गयय हक। जजसमम पभवर पयररत आददश तदनयसक 07.01.2022 पभवरवत / यथयवत कययम रखतद हहए वयद कक कययरवयहच समयप कर दच गयच हक। 5- ययचच दयरय पभवर मम तदयद गयद पककणर पयथरनय पत कद तनसतयरण कम मम पततवयदच ससखयय 5 दयरय तकयद गयद चहयरदचवयरच तनमयरण कन पततवयदच ससखयय 3 दयरय पयररत आददश तदनयसक 07. 01.2022 कद कम मम नययब तहसचलदयर सकदयबयद दयरय पनजलस बल कक उपससथतत मम तदनयसक 08.09.2024 कन जदसचबच सद तगरवय तदयय गयय। 6- पततवयदच ससखयय 3 कद नययययलय दयरय पयररत आददश तदनयसक 07.01.2022 कय अननपयलन पभवर मम हच तदनयसक 08.09.2024 कन करय तदयय गयय हक। पततवयदच ससखयय 4 दयरय पकरण कक सथलचय जयजच तदनयसक 12.04.2025 कन तकयय गयय। पततवयदच ससखयय 5 दयरय पननह तपलर पयवय व दचवयल बनय जलयय गयय हक" 5. Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent No.5 has opposed the instant writ petition and submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the property in dispute and moreover, the order which was passed on 07.01.2022 has already been complied with and this material fact has been concealed by the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has filed present writ petition with oblique motive just to create obstruction in the peaceful possession of the respondent No.5. 6. Taking into consideration the material available on record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the dispute is in between the petitioner and the private respondent No.5 and as such, the appropriate forum for the redressal of their dispute is competent Revenue or Civil Court having jurisdiction to deal with the same. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served to keep the writ petition pending. 7. In view of above, without adverting on the merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, instant writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent court for redressal of her grievances in accordance with law. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Karan Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad