JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner herein claims to be the recorded tenure holder of Gata No.840 measuring 1.265 hectares. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that father of the petitioner Late Bihari was granted patta for agricultural purposes way back on 8.7.1970 with the approval of Sub Divisional Magistrate, however he is not able to show any proof in this regard. Learned counsel is also not able to show that there was any entry in favour of his father late Bihari in the revenue records in respect of the land in question, however, he has drawn attention of the court to an alleged order dated 4.7.2008 by which his (petitioner's) name was recorded in respect of the aforesaid land as is mentioned in the photocopy of the khatauni pertaining to 1400-105 fasli allegedly by striking of the name of his father. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his father acquired the rights of bhumidhar with transferable right way back 21.2.1998 although he was not able to place the order by which it is said that the right was acquired. However, one Kamal Kishore who is arrayed herein as opposite party no.7 it is said got an order of Naib Tehsildar dated 19.9.1995 for recording his name in respect to the aforesaid land in dispute which was part of gata no.382 based on a will said to have been executed by petitioner's father late Bihari son of Ram Lal and based on the said order he got his name mutated in respect of the said land recently on 28.6.2019, fraudulently so as alleged. The petitioner, however has not annexed any admissible proof to establish that his father had died after 1995 nor there is any such pleading. 3. Now relief no.1 in the writ petition is in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute. This relief cannot be considered or granted by this court in view of the subsequent development by which on 28.6.2019 the name of opposite party no.7 has been recorded in respect of the same land. Moreover it is a factual issue as to who is in possession and who has title in which this court would not venture under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover it is a factual issue as to who is in possession and who has title in which this court would not venture under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This of course is without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to challenge the entries in favour of opposite party no.7 if otherwise permissible and unless already not challenged. 4. As regards relief nos. 2 and 3 these are in the nature of mandamus commanding the Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow as also the District Magistrate Unnao and the State Government to conduct an inquiry as the claim of the petitioner is that the said opposite party no.7 fraudulently sold off the land in dispute in respect of which relief no.1 has been prayed by the petitioner to relatives of erstwhile District Magistrate Unnao who is presently under suspension namely Devendra Kumar Pandey, as has been alleged. As regards relief nos.2,3 and 4 if the petitioner has tangible material he can approach the competent authority in the State Government in this regard but there is no reason for this court to venture into an enquiry to ascertain the truth of the allegations under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at least at this stage directly. 5. At this stage, Shri S.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition so far as relief nos.2,3 and 4 are concerned with liberty to approach the aforesaid authority. 6. Request is accepted the petition is dismissed so far relief nos. 2,3 and 4 are concerned with liberty as prayed for. 7. As regards relief no.1 for the reasons aforesaid the appropriate course for the petitioner would be to seek correction of records or initiate proceeding for declaration of title etc. before the competent Revenue Court or the Civil Court depending upon the fact as to whether the land in question is agricultural or abadi land. For these reasons this writ petition so far as relief no.1 is concerned can also not be entertained at this stage. 8. The allegation of fraud as has been raised herein is also open for being raised before the concerned authorities/courts. 9. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. None of the observations made herein-above shall come in the way of the petitioner in pursuing the legal remedies as aforesaid.