JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Shri Gauri Shankar Maurya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ashutosh Srivastava, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Shobh Nath Pandey, Advocate who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No.5, which is taken on record.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction to the opposite party No.2-Collector/ District Magistrate, Ayodhya to protect the life and property of the petitioner bearing Plot No.102 Ka measuring 0.0740 hectare situated in Village and Post- Netwari Chaturpur, Pargana- Paschim Rath, Tehsil- Bikapur, Ayodhya under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as Maintenance Act 2007) and Rule 21 of U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the Maintenance Rules). The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the authorities to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner for maintaining law and order on the spot.

3. It has inter alia been pleaded in the writ petition that Plot No.102 Ka measuring 0.0740 hectare situated in Village and Post- Netwari Chaturpur, Pargana- Paschim Rath, Tehsil- Bikapur, Ayodhya was recorded in the revenue records in the name of Radhey Shyam, Rajaram, Sitaram etc. as co sharers and Bhoomidhars with transferable rights. The petitioner - Magghu Ram and his wife Smt. Jaikala Devi had purchased a plot of land measuring 40 ft. X 40 ft. from the aforesaid Plot No.102 Ka through a registered saledeed dated 04.07.2005 executed by Sitaram and Rajaram, sons of Late Shankar. It is important to note that the petitioner himself has pleaded that Plot No.102 Ka was recorded in the names of "Radhey Shayam, Rajaram, Sitaram etc." and except Rajaram and Sitaram, the other co-tenure holders and co-sharers had not executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his wife.

4. It is stated that the petitioner and his wife executed a sale deed dated 04.03.2013 in favour of Phoolkala, wife of Ram Surat, in respect of a portion of their plot measuring 27 ft. X 40 ft. and the remaining area measuring 13 ft. X 40 ft. remained in possession of the petitioner. The opposite party No.6 Shri Chandrabhan Mishra has also purchased some portion of Plot No.102 Ka but the petitioner claims that the portion purchased by the opposite party No.6 is not adjacent to the property of the petitioner. As per the petitioner, the opposite party No.6 is trying to grab the area measuring 13 ft. X 40 ft. which forms a part of Plot No.102 Ka and which is in possession of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner filed an application dated 28.01.2026 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bikapur, Ayodhya requesting him to take action against the opposite party No.5 and 6 under Section 164 and 165 BNSS.

6. The petitioner has pleaded that the District Magistrate owes a duty to protect the property of the petitioner under Section 22 of the U.P. Maintenance Act, 2007 and Rule 21 of the Maintenance Rules. He has sought issuance of a direction to the Collector/District Magistrate, Ayodhya to protect the life and property of the petitioner under Section 22 of Maintenance Act.

7. On the basis of written instructions provided by SDM, Bikapur, Ayodhya, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the land bearing Gata No.102 Ka is a combined number and the names of the petitioner and the opposite party Nos.5 and 6 are recorded on different parts of the same Gata number. An order under Section 30 (2) of the U.P. Revenue Code has been passed for partition of the land. In this regard, a revision under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 bearing computerized No.C202504000000332 is pending before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and the next date fixed in revision is 10.04.2026.

8. Learned counsel for the pet