JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. The reliefs which the petitioner claims in this proceeding are as follows: "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos.1 to 5 to restrain the respondent nos.6 to 13 forthwith from forceful illegal encroachment on the petitioner Gata No.1251 in spite of the judgment/order & decree dated 17.04.1999 as well as the judgment/order & decree dated 15.06.2005 passed in Case No.27 of 2004-05 (Prakash & others Vs. Maluka & others) in favour of petitioner, within stipulated period in the interest of justice. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue record in pursuance of the judgment/order & decree dated 17.04.1999 as well as the judgment/order & decree dated 15.06.2005 passed in Case No.27 of 2004-05 (Prakash & others Vs. Maluka & others)." 2. The petitioner has rolled up several causes of action in one proceeding. Firstly, the petitioner seeks an order of injunction against the private respondents. Secondly, he seems to seek execution of a decree. Thirdly, the petitioner seeks a decision on an application for mutation. 3. In respect of all the three aspects, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the proper remedy. In respect of the allegation of illegal encroachment, the petitioner has to access the ordinary civil remedies. For execution of a decree, the petitioner would have to seek recourse to execution in accordance with law. Insofar as the mutation is concerned, there are provisions in the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. 4. Hence, in either view of the matter, a petition of this nature cannot be entertained under Article 226 . The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.