MAHESH KUMAR @ RINKUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                              WRIT - C No. - 18603 of 2026

Mahesh Kumar @ Rinku
                                                                                   .....Petitioner(s)
                                              Versus
State Of U.P. And 7 Others
                                                                                .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Parvesh Kumar Pandey, Sarvesh
                            Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 36
                    HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

     "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the entire records of
     the case and quashing the impugned orders/disposal dated 08.04.2026/09.04.2026 passed
     by Respondent No. 2, /Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahavan, District Mathura, in
     Complaint Nos 200145260031161 and 20014526004164. .


     Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent No.
     2/District Magistrate, Mathura, to constitute an independent and impartial revenue team,
     and to ensure fresh spot inspection and lawful demarcation of Khasra No. 1136M,
     admeasuring 0.250 hectare, situated in Mouza Nera Bangar, Tehsil Mahavan, District
     Mathura, in. accordance with prescribed procedure, in the presence of both parties, and to
     prepare a site map and submit a reasoned report before this Hon'ble Court within a
     stipulated time frame.


     Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent No.
     2/District Magistrate, Mathura, to consider and decide the Petitioner's application dated
     15.04.2026 in accordance with law."


3. From the averments made in writ petition and representation
submitted by petitioner, it is apparent that petitioner wants
demarcation of his land viz-a-viz land of the private respondents.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that petitioner can move
an application under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code,
2006 for redressal of his grievances, in view of the judgments passed
                                                                                        WRIC No. 18603 of 2026
                                                                      2


                                    by this Court in case of Jahar Singh v. State of U.P. reported in
                                    2017(4) ADJ 619 as well as in Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of U.P. and
                                    others reported in 2023 (12) ADJ 226.

                                    5. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, I am not inclined to
                                    entertain the instant petition.

                                    6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the
                                    petitioner to move an application under Section 24 of the U.P.
                                    Revenue Code, 2006. In case, petitioner moves an application under
                                    Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, before appropriate
                                    authority, the same shall be decided, in accordance with law,
                                    expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the
                                    date of production of a certified copy of this order after providing
                                    opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties provided there is
                                    no other legal impediment.


                                    May 12, 2026
                                    Rishabh                                    (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)




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