Allahabad High Court

REENA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 13 September 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

Mandamus cannot be issued as the petitioner must pursue correction of the revenue record under Section 38 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.

Summary

Reena Devi filed a PIL seeking a writ of mandamus directing the District Magistrate to inquire into, and the Gaon Sabha to correct, certain revenue entries that allegedly recorded respondent No.5’s name as owner of pond and banjar lands without any legal basis. The petitioner claimed that representations made to the District Magistrate, including one dated 26‑05‑2026, had been ignored. The State, through the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, contended that the correct remedy is an application under Section 38 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, read with Rule 36 of the 2016 Rules, for correction of errors in the record of rights. The Court examined the statutory scheme and held that mandamus cannot be issued where a specific remedial provision exists under the Revenue Code. Accordingly, the petition was disposed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file the appropriate Section 38 application before the Tehsildar or other competent authority.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate remedy for correcting erroneous entries in revenue records under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code?
Can a writ of mandamus be issued to compel the District Magistrate and Gaon Sabha to correct such entries?

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 38
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 — s. 36

Subjects

mandamus
revenue record correction
Section 38
U.P. Revenue Code
public interest litigation
administrative law
land records

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2174 of 2026

Reena Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pramod Kumar Sahani
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rameshwar Prasad Shukla

Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent
nos. 1 to 3. Sri R. P. Shukla, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of
respondent Gaon Sabha.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking following relief:

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 to enquire into
the matter and direct the respondent no. 3 to correct the entry
of Gata nos. 330 M/93 Kari, 330M/93 Kari, 331/261 Kari
pond, 332/60 Kari, situated at Village Rasoolpur
Inamuddinpur, Tehsil Madhuban, District Mau by deleting the
name of respondent no. 5."

3. The grievance of petitioner is that the plots in question recorded as
Pond and Banjar in Khatauni 1356 Fasli, the name of respondent no. 5
has been wrongly recorded, without any basis and formal order having
been passed in his favour. It is contended that the petitioner has made
various representations, including the representation dated 26.05.2026,
before the District Magistrate, for correction of entries, which has not
been considered till date.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has
raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has remedy to move an
appropriate application under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
WPIL No. 2174 of 2026
2

read with Rule 36 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 for correction of
any error or omission in the record of rights.

5. The representation made by the petitioner before the District Court is
not in accordance with the provisions of Code and Rules.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, it is evident
that the petitioner has an appropriate remedy of moving an application
under Section 38 before the Tehsildar for correction of any error or
omission in the record of rights. The Tehsildar after making appropriate
enquiry may refer the case alongwith his report to the Sub Divisional
Officer for correction of revenue records and to the Collector for
correction of map.

7. In view of the aforesaid, no mandamus can be issued to the District
Magistrate to decide the representation for the relief claimed by him. In
such circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to move an appropriate application under Section 38(1) of the
Code, before the appropriate authority, which shall be considered in
accordance with law.

(Arun Kumar,J.)
September 14, 2026
Ashok Kr.

Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…