JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioner contents that by virtue of a sale-deed dated 2.11.2004, she is the owner of Plot No. 532 measuring 0.114 acre from which she is sought to be dispossessed by the Respondent No. 1, Allahabad Development Authority (hereinafter called the ‘Development Authority’). 2. The petition was filed on the allegations that the Development Authority, without putting the petitioner to notice, proceeded to demolish the portion of the boundary wall of the petitioner which had been constructed to protect the aforesaid piece of land. The reliefs claimed were to restrain the Development Authority from demolishing the boundary wall and not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner or carry out any construction work thereon which may prejudicially affect the rights of the petitioner. 3. This Court entertained the writ petition and passed an interim order on 19.8.2006 to the effect that the parties will maintain status quo and the petitioner was permitted to raise constructions at her own risk which shall be subject to the final decision in the writ petition. 4. A counter-affidavit and a supplementary counter-affidavit have been filed by the Development Authority and a re-oinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner. 5. We have heard Sri S.P. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate and Shri G.N. Verma, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Shri Alok K. Yadav, Counsel for the Development Authority as well. 6. From the facts that have been brought on record, it is evident that Plot No. 532 measuring 15 biswas was subject-matter of acquisition for which a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the ‘Act 1894’) was issued on 12.11.1987. Alongwith the said plot, a large tract of land was acquired for the purpose of development including the construction of a park named as Nehru Park. The owners of Plot No. 532 did not object to the acquisition proceedings and after publication of declaration under Sections 6 and 17 of the Act 1894, the owners received compensation in respect of the aforesaid plot. Some of the other tenure-holders, whose land was acquired under the aforesaid notification, filed a writ petition before this Court which was ultimately decided on 28.5.1999, i.e. Ram Pratap and others v. State of U.P. and others, 1999 ALJ 2365. Some of the other tenure-holders, whose land was acquired under the aforesaid notification, filed a writ petition before this Court which was ultimately decided on 28.5.1999, i.e. Ram Pratap and others v. State of U.P. and others, 1999 ALJ 2365. A perusal of the judgment indicates that the present petitioner was not the petitioner therein and the said dispute was confined to Plot Nos. 520, 526 and 527. However, the said judgment set aside the acquisition proceedings which was taken up in appeal before the Apex Court. Before the Apex Court, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and on the basis of the said compromise, the appeal was disposed of and the judgment of the High Court was set aside. According to the compromise, the land which belonged to the defence department had already been handed over by the Development Authority to them and so far as the petitioners in the writ petitions were concerned, they were given alternative sites. However, the said dispute, in no way, did concern the present plot in question. According to the records, the acquisition in respect of Plot No. 520 had already stood concluded. 7. The petitioner has admittedly purchased the land through a sale-deed executed in her favour in the year 2004 and she claims that since the name of original tenure-holder came to be recorded, she under a bona fide belief purchased the land and her name has also been recorded in the revenue records. In such a situation, the Development Authority could not have proceeded to interfere with her possession as she has valid title over the land in question. 8. From the facts narrated herein, we find that in view of the acquisition proceedings having been undertaken and the judgment of the High Court setting aside the notification have been set aside, the title of the petitioner over the land in question becomes Seriously disputed. In the event the petitioner is aggrieved and is claiming title over the land in question under the sale-deed 2.11.2004, she has to approach the Civil Court for declaration of her rights as this Court does not find any reason to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reliefs claimed for in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for the redressal of her grievance. Interim order passed herein stands vacated. ————