Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—Pursuant to order of this Court dated 9.3.2018 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Meerut is present in the Court. Learned Standing Counsel has received instructions. On the strength of instructions she submits that by an order dated 29.1.2018 a Division Bench of this Court in a writ petition i.e. Writ-C No. 3701 of 2018 has stayed the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut dated 5.12.2017 wherein a direction was issued to ensure that the physical possession of the land in question be handed over to the petitioners by use of police force.

2. Be that as it may, the relief sought in the instant writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the possession of the petitioners’ land in dispute as directed by order dated 5.12.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut (which has been stayed by the Division Bench on 29.1.2018) and the order passed by this Court in a writ petition i.e. (Writ-B No. 58750 of 2015), dated 2.12.2016 which is stated to be confirmed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2979 of 2017 by order dated 17.2.2017.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the conduct of the petitioner dis-entitles him to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as she has not come with clean hands.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner in respect of same property had instituted a suit for ejectment wherein an interim injunction was granted. Later, he has withdrawn the suit, but this fact has not been disclosed before this Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing, Sri Anurag Sharma and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record and pleadings carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioners files second supplementary-affidavit. It is taken on record.

6. The petitioners had instituted the suit for ejectment being Suit No. 2077 of 2017 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer in respect of the same property. However, the petitioners have not disclosed any fact with regard to institution of the suit. A copy of plaint of the suit is on the record as annexure-1 to the impleadment application filed today.

7. Learned Standing Counsel submits that some civil suits are also pending in the Civil Court. She produced the record which indicates that in respect of the same property some civil suits are pending before the Civil Court, Meerut which are, Suit No. 167 of 2017 (Kishan Gopal v. Guddi); Suit No. 639 of 2017 (Smt. Rakhi v. Guddi); Suit No. 839 of 2016 (Smt. Rajesh Kumari v. Raj Kumar); Suit No. 554 of 2017 (Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal v. Guddi) and Suit No. 550 of 2017 (Smt. Poonam v. Smt. Guddi). In respect of the same property Suit No. 2077 of 2017 (Smt. Guddi v. Kishan Gopal) under Section 134 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is also pending before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Meerut.

8. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the objections filed by the petitioners are still pending.

9. It is a well-settled law that a writ of mandamus can be granted only if the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance and there is statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned to discharge the statutory obligation. In case of failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory duty only then a writ of mandamus can be issued. If there is no legal right with the party asking for writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty the writ cannot be issued. In the case of Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. Governing Body of the Nalanda College, Bihar Sharif and others, AIR 1962 SC 1210, the Court observed as under:

“5. ...In order that mandamus may issue to compel the respondents to do something it must be shown that the Statutes impose a legal duty and the appellant has a lega