By the Court.—The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a mandamus commanding the second and fifth respondents to ensure the compliance of the order dated 10th April, 2018 passed by the respondent No. 4 Sub Divisional Magistrate Salempur, Tehsil Salempur, District Deoria. The private respondents have been represented by Sri C.V. Gupta, who has put his appearance on behalf of respondent No. 5

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner claims that she is the owner of the house which is situated in Khata No. 615 having area 0.0340 hectare and she is a co-sharer with the other persons and her family is living in their house peacefully since very long and same is in possession of the petitioner which also covers some part of Khata No. 618 which is a land under Section 6 (2) of the Land Revenue Act, 1901.

3. Her grievance was that respondent Nos. 6 and 7 who are private the respondents raised an objection on 9th April 2018 when the petitioner was carrying out certain construction and repair work of her house. The objection of the private respondents are that the land on which the petitioner is trying to raise construction, is a Banjar land and the said construction is on Khata No. 613 and 614, a copy of their objection is on record as annexure 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner thereafter approached the fourth respondent Sub-Divisional Magistrate. On the said application, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the respondent No. 4 directed the Station House Officer “Incharge Inspector Police” respondent No. 5 to submit a report to make an inspection and he passed an order to stop the construction of the petitioner which was going on on her land. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner’s husband moved an application before the fourth respondent and requested to call a report from Lekhpal or the Revenue Inspector. On the direction of respondent No. 4, the Revenue Inspector submitted a spot inspection report dated 12th April, 2018 and reported that there is no new construction on Khata No. 613 and 614. Upon the said application, the fourth respondent directed the fifth respondent to ensure that the repair work/”Construction work” of the petitioner be permitted to continue and in case of any hindrance, the same may be prevented. A copy of the order dated 16th April, 2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate is annexure 4 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of writ of mandamus for compliance of the order passed by the S.D.M.

Sri C.V. Gupta, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 5. Sri Gupta submits that the dispute relates to a property dispute and no writ of mandamus can be issued. He further submits that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has no authority to pass interim injunction order against the private respondents as a Magistrate. Lastly he urges that the S.D.M. is not a Revenue Court and being a Magistrate he cannot pass such order.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Admittedly, the dispute relates to the private property. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has issued an order in favour of the petitioner and has directed the Station House Officer that he should ensure that no hindrance be caused by other party in the construction of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that she is a Bhumidhar of the land whereas the claim of the respondents are that the land belongs to Gaon Sabha and it is a Banjar land. It is trite law that writ of mandamus cannot be issued in respect of property dispute, where contesting parties are claiming their title. The Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329, has considered a large number of its earlier judgements and held that writ petition is not the proper remedy in respect of the property dispute and the party should be relegated to seek appropriate remedy before the C