The main legal point established in the judgment is that the writ of mandamus can only be issued when a statutory authority fails to perform its duty, and the petitioner has approached the authority concerned requesting compliance of the statutory provisions but failed.

Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent nos. 1 to 4 to ensure compliance of the stay order dated 09th April, 2018 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Allahabad. The relief sought for by the petitioner reads as under:

"(A). a writ of Mandamus directing respondent no. 1 to 4 to insure the compliance of stay order dated 9-4-2018 passed by Court of Settlement Officer Consolidation Allahabad in Appeal No. 548 + 332, Chhedi Khan v. Tulasiram under section 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, and also directing to respondents 5 to 14 to maintain status quo on properties old plot no. 176 corresponding to new plots 314, 317, and 318 of Village Kanihar Pargana Jhusi Tahasil Phoolpur, Allahabad."

2. From the relief sought for by the petitioner it is clear that the petitioner wants to get the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation executed by this Court. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus for compliance of the stay order. The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, the "Act") is a complete Code in itself. The appropriate authority in such cases is the Consolidation Commissioner or the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, as the case may be. From the perusal of the writ petition it appears that without seeking appropriate remedy under the provisions of the Act the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is an extraordinary remedy.

3. The experience reveals that for petty matters the litigants are approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Delhi High Court in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda and another, W.P. (C) No. 9828 of 2015, has aptly observed that the High Courts have become very liberal in entertaining the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and the litigants have assumed that writ petition is remedy for all type of illnesses in the society, with the result that roster of all the High Courts are choked with the petty matters and they are unable to decide the important matters, which are becoming infructuous. The Supreme Court also in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and others, (2014) 8 SCC 470, has laid down the law that the time has come when the High Courts should curb the tendency of filing frivolous petitions on petty matters and for that heavy cost should be imposed upon the litigants. In another case in Phool Chandra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 112, the Supreme Court has held that to deprecate the tendency of filing of frivolous and petty matters the High Courts should impose cost on advocates also, who accept brief of such frivolous and petty matters.

4. Moreover, from the pleadings of the writ petition it is clear that the petitioner has not approached the District Deputy Director of Consolidation/District Magistrate nor he has made any representation to the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P.. It is a well-settled law that the writ of mandamus can only be issued when a statutory authority fails to perform its duty and the petitioner has approached the authority concerned requesting him for compliance of the statutory provisions but he failed, only then a writ of mandamus lies. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise Central Revenue and others, AIR 1975 SC 538, which has consistently been followed.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329, has held that writ of mandamus should not be issued in the matters of property dispute. The petitioner has brought on record the photographs to demonstrate that the contesting respondents have raised construction almost upto roof level and by the writ of mandamus he wants