ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1, 5 and 6, Sri A.P. Srivastava for respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 and perused the record. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief:- "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith provide possession of plot no. GH 6/1, Sector 6, Kamla Nagar Yojna, Agra for which paper possession has already been handed over to the petitioner on 8.11.2002 and for which the Housing Commissioner has already requested the District Magistrate, Agra to ensure demarcation of the plot and hand over its possession in favour of the petitioner vide its letter dated 4th July, 2003 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition).” 3. The aforesaid relief apparently show that mandamus is sought by petitioner for delivery of possession of certain land. 4. Brief facts stated in the writ petition are that petitioner is a Cooperative Housing Society applied for allotment of Plot no. GH 6/1, Sector 6, Kamla Nagar Yojna, Agra in the year 1999. The said scheme was launched by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as 'UPAEVP') which is body created under the provisions of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1965'). The aforesaid body has been created for establishment and incorporation and functioning of Housing Development Board in U.P. For the purpose of allotment of aforesaid land, petitioner also deposited Rs. 19,00,000/- with UPAEVP. 5. Kamla Nagar Scheme (Rehabilitation, Housing and Road Project) was notified under Section 357 of U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1959'). Proceedings for acquisition of land commenced by notification dated 23.04.1960 under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A scheme was sanctioned by government order dated 07.04.1964. Subsequently, the aforesaid scheme was transferred by Nagar Mahapalika, Agra to UPAEVP. The possession of acquired land was also transferred to UPAEVP by Land Acquisition Officer. 6. Petitioner was allocated a land comprised area 7000 sq. metre in Khasra nos. 168, 169, 171, 172, 173 and 174 Kha (which are adjacent to Khasra nos. 166, 170 and 70). On record possession was also given to petitioner. 7. In respect to aforesaid land it appears that Karbala Kabristan Committee raised a dispute stating that Khasra nos. 6. Petitioner was allocated a land comprised area 7000 sq. metre in Khasra nos. 168, 169, 171, 172, 173 and 174 Kha (which are adjacent to Khasra nos. 166, 170 and 70). On record possession was also given to petitioner. 7. In respect to aforesaid land it appears that Karbala Kabristan Committee raised a dispute stating that Khasra nos. 160 and 170 is recorded as Kabristan and 164 and 174 are recorded as pathway, hence there is no question of allotment or possession of aforesaid land. When dispute was raised by Karbala Kabristan Committee and there arose law and order situation, District Magistrate, Agra intervened in the matter and found that on the spot only 4300 sq. metre land at Khasra no. 171, 172 and 173 was available of which possession can be given to UPAEVP or the person to which land has been allotted but rest of land was not allocable. He mentioned these facts in the order dated 03.05.2005 addressed to Housing Commissioner, UPAEVP and requested him that since land is beyond 4300 sq. metre is not available, question of refund of payment, if made by allottee, be considered. 8. It also appears that petitioner's apprehended that UPAEVP may transfer land comprising the aforesaid plot numbers allotted to him to any other party hence filed Original Suit No. 215 of 1999 wherein an ad-interim injunction was granted restraining UPAEVP from transferring disputed land to third person. 9. Subsequently, some compromise took place between parties as a result whereof Original Suit no. 215 of 1999 was withdrawn by petitioner. 10. UPAEVP issued a letter dated 29.08.2002 to petitioner informing that the plot allotted to it is priced at commercial rate, Rs. 3,04,67,069/- and petitioner should therefore, deposit initial payment of Rs. 30,50,000/-. The said amount of 30,50,000/- was deposited by petitioner vide Bank Draft dated 31.08.2002. Letter of allotment dated 02.09.2002 was issued by UPAEVP referring to compromise between parties in the aforesaid suit and stating that entire balance amount shall be deposited in installments, details whereof was given therein. 11. Petitioner deposited Rs. 28,43,414/- on 03.09.2002, Rs. 27,00,000/- on 27.09.2002, Rs. 35,00,000/- on 08.10.2002 and 31,40,121/- on 10.10.2002, thus a total sum of Rs.1,52,33,535/-was deposited with UPAEVP for the aforesaid land. 12. A Higher Purchase Agreement was executed between parties on 25.10.2002. Possession letter was also signed by representatives of UPAEVP and petitioner on 08.11.2002. 11. Petitioner deposited Rs. 28,43,414/- on 03.09.2002, Rs. 27,00,000/- on 27.09.2002, Rs. 35,00,000/- on 08.10.2002 and 31,40,121/- on 10.10.2002, thus a total sum of Rs.1,52,33,535/-was deposited with UPAEVP for the aforesaid land. 12. A Higher Purchase Agreement was executed between parties on 25.10.2002. Possession letter was also signed by representatives of UPAEVP and petitioner on 08.11.2002. It is thereafter that the dispute by Karbala Kabristan Committee was raised and it was found that on the spot, area of land available was not 7000 sq. metre but only 4300 sq. metre comprising Khasra nos. 171, 172 and 173 only. Even land measuring 4300 sq. metre was not capable of any use by petitioner for want of demarcation. Housing Commissioner requested District Magistrate, Agra to get Khasra nos. 171, 172 and 173 demarcated and verify actual possession of petitioner on the said land. 13. In the meantime petitioner also wrote a letter to UPAEVP stating that since only 4300 sq. metre land will now be available to it, therefore, total cost of land and installments be re-scheduled. 14. The petitioner thereafter raised grievance that District Magistrate has not taken any action for demarcation and has not allowed petitioner to exercise its right over Khasra nos. 171, 172 and 173 area 4300 sq. metre in respect whereto there is no dispute, hence this writ petition seeking mandamus directing respondents to provide possession of Plot no. GH-6/1, Sector 6, Kamla Nagar Yojna, Agra to the petitioner and ensure demarcation, has been filed. 15. Counsel for petitioner when being questioned could not dispute that demarcation, if required to be made by Revenue Authorities, for that purpose statutory remedy is available under U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Where land is within municipal area the provisions of statute governing municipalities would apply. 16. Moreover, if there is an enforceable contract between parties, entitle a party for possession of some property but the said contract is not being enforced or there is any otherwise activity on the part of other party to the contract, remedy lies in common law by filing a suit for enforcement of contract and other relevant relief but for that purpose no writ petition would lie. Hence petitioner is claiming his right pursuant to a contract with UPAEVP. This right is contractual right which is sought to be enforced. Hence petitioner is claiming his right pursuant to a contract with UPAEVP. This right is contractual right which is sought to be enforced. Respondents are not in a statutory obligation to do something that they are refraining from doing so. Hence for the relief sought in writ petition, no writ of mandamus, in our view, would lie. 17. In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs Sunder Lal Jain and another (2008) 2 SCC 280 , Court after referring to its earlier judgments in Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fisherman Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs Sipahi Singh (1977) 4 SCC 145 ; Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani Vs N.M. Shah, AIR 1966 SC 334 , Dr. Uma Kant Saran Vs State of Bihar 1993 (1) SCC 485 observed as under:- “ There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation.” 18. Learned counsel for petitioner when confronted with the aforesaid exposition of law could not dispute the same and also could not assist the Court to show that he is enforcing any statutory right and calling upon respondents to perform a statutory duty imposed upon them. 19. In fact, petitioner is claiming certain rights which may be enforceable in common law by filing a suit in Civil Court, hence a writ petition under Article 226 invoking equitable extra ordinary jurisdiction is not maintainable. The petitioner has a statutory alternative efficacious remedy. 20. Hence, writ petition is dismissed for the reason stated above.