JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has come up praying that a mandamus be issued, directing the respondent Authorities to hand over possession of Arazi no.148-Kha, admeasuring 120ft. X 35ft. back to the petitioner, in compliance with the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meja, Prayagraj, dated 12.08.2011, passed in Case No. 4/4/4/9/12/13/14/27/30 of 2010-11, Indrakali vs. Uchit Narayan and others, within a determinate period of time.

2. Heard Mr. D.K. Ojha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anurag Rai, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-party, Smt. Gudiya, under Chapter XXII Rule 5A of the Rules of the Court and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4. No one appears on behalf of respondent nos.5 to 8.

3. The facts, leading to the present writ petition, are that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meja, Prayagraj passed a preliminary order, under Section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for convenience, ''Cr.P.C.), requiring the first party, Smt. Indrakali (the petitioner) and the second party, Uchit Narayan and his three sons, to appear on 05.07.2018 and put in their respective written statements about their claims to possession of the property in dispute. The parties were also directed to produce evidence. This order was passed in Case no.15 of 1998, under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The dispute was about a piece of land, admeasuring 120ft. X 35ft., located in front of the door leading to Indrakali's house. This is how the property is described in the preliminary order.

4. The proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated on the basis of a report from the Station House Officer, Police Station Khiri, District Prayagraj, dated 10.07.1998, that the dispute between parties relating to possession of the property, above described, had led to a mounting of tension inter se the parties, which could precipitate a breach of peace at any time.

5. About a year after the issue of the preliminary order, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meja, relying on the same report dated 10.08.1998, invoked his powers to attach pending decision of the case under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on ground of urgency and directed attachment of the property in dispute by his order dated 23.07.1999. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meja directed the S.H.O. to attach the property, detailed at the foot of the order under Section 146(1) and hand over the same to a respectable man, about which a compliance report was directed to be filed by 09.08.1999. In compliance, the S.H.O., P.S. Khiri attached the property in dispute on 01.09.1999 and delivered it into the joint supurdagi of one Vishnu Datt son of Paras Nath and another Lallu Ram son of Bandhu Lal.

6. The case under Section 145 Cr.P.C. came up for determination before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meja on 12.08.2011. The S.D.M. found for the petitioner and directed release of the attached property in favour of Indrakali. The S.H.O. was ordered to ensure delivery of possession of the attached property to Indrakali after taking it back from the supurdgar's possession. It is the non-compliance of this order dated 12.08.2011, that has led the petitioner to institute this writ petition. She says that the order dated 12.08.2011 was never carried out. The petitioner moved an application on 16.08.2011 before the S.D.M. to ensure compliance of his order dated 12.08.2011. The application was pursued with repeat requests.

7. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order on 29.12.2015, directing the S.H.O., Khiri to carry out the order dated 12.08.2011, by causing possession of the attached property to be delivered to Indrakali. It is remarked in the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order dated December the 29th, 2015 that his predecessors too had passed several orders to the same effect. A copy of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order dated 29.12.2015 is on record as Annexure no.5 to the writ petition. This order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not move the S.H.O. and the