JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari and Mukhtar Ahmad, JJ. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 4 to 11, Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel on behalf of respondent no.3, Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the respondent no.12. 2. This writ petition has been filed for order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.7.2015, passed by respondent no.5, Additional District Magistrate (City) Agra District-Agra, appended at annexure-9 to the writ petition, which is quoted below: dk;kZy; vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼uxj½ vkxjkA la[;k 992@,l0Vh0 ¼uxj½ fnukad% 16 tqykbZ 2015 izHkkjh fujh{kd Fkkuk & NRrkA d`i;k Jh xEHkhj ey ik.Ms;k funs'kd lqjs'k pUnz tSu iq= Lo0 Jh lqEesjey tSu fuoklh caxyk ua0 2 thouh e.Mh vkxjk ds layXud izkFkZuk i= dk lUnHkZ ys] tks ekStk ?kVoklu ds [kljk ua0 2087 esa fuekZ.k fd,s tkus ls lEcfU/kr gSaA izdj.k dh tkap vij eftLVsªV ¼f}rh;½ ,oa rglhynkj lnj u djk yh xbZ gS ftlesa [kljk ua0 2087 esa fuekZ.kk/khu LFky ij izkFkhZ dk LokfeRo o dCtk ik;k x;kA vr% bl fuekZ.kk/khu dk;Z ds lEcU/k esa iwoZ ikfjr vkns'kksa dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gS] rFkk funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd iwoZ fuekZ.k LFky ij fuekZ.k dk;Z izkFkhZ }kjk djk;k tk jgk gks rks mldk fuekZ.k dk;Z djus fn;k tk,] ;fn dksbZ fuekZ.k dk;Z esa ck/kk mRiUu djsa rks muds fo: ) fu;ekuqlkj vko';d dk;Zokgh djsaA layXud & ;FkkSDrA g0 vifBr ¼jkts'k dqekj JhokLro½ vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼uxj½ vkxjkA 3. It appears that the aforesaid order has passed after inquiry made by Additional Magistrate (Second) and Tehsildar Sadar. 4. The petitioner claims to be owner of land bearing Khasra No. 2087 Khewat No. 4 measuring about 10 Biswa, situated at Mauja Ghatwasan Mustkin Muhal Kunwar Nidhan Singh, Police Station- Chhatta Tehsil Sadar, District- Agra. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondents 12 & 13 are Bhu-mafia and they are making construction over the property of the petitioner. 6. Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.12, has strongly denied and submits that he is the owner of the plot and the same is received in the partition through Suit No. 31 of 1940 and he is in possession over the land since then. 6. Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.12, has strongly denied and submits that he is the owner of the plot and the same is received in the partition through Suit No. 31 of 1940 and he is in possession over the land since then. The title of respondent no.12 which was challenged in Civil Revision No. 360 of 1992 (Girish Chandra Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Gambhir Mal Pandya Private Ltd. Company, Jhon Mills, Agra reported in Allahabad Rent Cases 1999 (1) 105 also considered in the aforementioned suit. He has also raised a query about maintainability of the writ petition saying that the matter is between the petitioner and respondent no.12 which are private parties and hence writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Sri V.K. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered in Sanjay Singh Versus State of U.P. And Ors reported in [2001(43)ACC 342 : 2001 (1) ARC 568 ] and Commander N.P. Kulshreshtha & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in ALR 1996(28) 302 : 1997 (1) ARC 357 Both the aforesaid judgments are regarding house grabbing where the opposite parties had no right to the land, therefore the judgments filed by Sri V.K. Dixit are not applicable. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, we are not inclined to interfere at this stage as the matter is between two private parties and the title from which the judgments appears in favour of respondent no.12 and 13 and if the petitioner claims any part by metes and bounds he may file suit before appropriate forum. 9. No interference is required by this Court. 10. Writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.