HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 23556 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents and perused the record. 2. Present writ petition has been filed, inter-alia, with the following prayers:- "1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the respondent no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 alongwith other revenue authorities to re-construct/re-establish the Masjid Sarai Wali, Kasba Patwai, Tehsil Shahabad, District Rampur at the place, where it was earlier exist forthwith. 2. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the respondent no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 alongwith other revenue authorities to consider and decide the application of the petitioner dated 10.07.2025, pending before them, within stipulated period of time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 3. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon para nos.17 and 19 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows:- "17. That, the contents of paragraph no.10 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated hence, denied. In reply thereto, it is submitted here that the annexure mentioned in this paragraph does not relate to the mosque in question i.e. the Sarai wali Masjid. Moreover, even if it is assumed that the mosque in question was recorded in the Muslim Waqf Department U.P., then the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995, which provides that "85 - Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts. No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie in any 2 [civil court, revenue court and any other authority] in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any 1 [waqf], 1 [waqf] property or other matter which Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohammad Khalid, Rajesh Kumar Bind, S. Kamal Akhtar Khan, Shami Ullah Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Mohd. Akram .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal." 19. That, the contents of paragraph nos. 12 & 13 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated hence, denied. In reply thereto, it is submitted here that the encroachers were given a legal notice to remove the illegal construction over the land in dispute. In response to this notice, the Committee members, through an affidavit dated 11.06.2025, informed remove the encroachment on the Mosque itself. Despite the above affidavit, since the Mosque Committee did not remove the encroachment, hence, on 24.06.2025, a joint team of the Revenue Department, Police and Public Works Department removed all remaining construction/encroachment" 4. The aforesaid facts were disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that since disputed questions of fact are involved in the present case which cannot adjudicated upon without appraisal of evidence, thus the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. It is well open for the petitioner to work out the remedy in the manner under law. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. September 18, 2026 Gaurav Kuls WRIC No. 23556 of 2025 2 (Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad