PREM CHANDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                     WRIT - C No. - 26409 of 2026

Prem Chand
                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)           :   Ram Sagar, Utkarsh Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)           :   C.S.C., Vijay Kumar Dubey

Court No. - 37
                 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Utkarsh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Vijay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no.6 and Mr.
R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

     (a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
     certiorari calling for the records and quashing the
     impugned orders dated 11.05.2026 passed by
     respondent no.-2 (Additional Commissioner, Basti
     Division, District Sant Kabir Nagar) in Case Number
     1298 of 2025 (Computerized No.-Allaha2517000001298),
     Premchand Vs. Ashok Kumar and order dated
     09.09.2025 passed by respondent no.-4 (Sub Divisional
     Officer, Tehsil Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar) in
     Case Number 11502 of 2025 (Computerized No.-
     T202517650211502), Ashok Kumar VS State of U.P. and
     others (Annexure No.- 1 to this petition.)"

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's
objection which has been filed against the demarcation of the field
book, has been rejected vide order dated 09.09.2025 in illegal and
arbitrary manner, accordingly, appeal under Section 24(4) of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, which
has also been dismissed without considering the case as set up in
                                                  WRIC No. 26409 of 2026
                            2


appeal. He submitted that both the impugned orders should be set
aside and matter should be sent back before Sub Divisional Officer to
decide the proceeding under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

4. Mr. Vijay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the private respondent
no.6 and Mr. R.C.Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State submitted that alternative remedy of revision
under Section 210 of U.P.Revenue Code, 2006 is available to the
petitioner as such writ petition cannot be entertained. They further
submitted that proceeding under Section 24 of U.P.Revenue Code,
2006 initiated by the respondent no.6 in respect to the plot no.365
has been rightly decided while plot no. 368 belongs to petitioner as
such there is no illegality in exercise of jurisdiction by the Sub
Divisional Officer.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, learned counsel for the private respondent no.6,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents
and perused the record.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section
24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed by the petitioner has been
decided by sub divisional officer vide order dated 9.9.2025.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter,
perusal of section 24 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 will be
relevant, which is as under:-


    "Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code


    (4) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Sub-

    Divisional Officer may prefer an appeal before the

    Commissioner within 30 days of the such order. [The

    order of the Commissioner shall, subject to the

    provisions of Section 210, be final]."
                                                                                          WRIC No. 26409 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    8. Perusal of Section 24 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
                                    demonstrate that order passed under Section 24 (4) of U.P. Revenue
                                    Code, 2006 is final subject to provisions of Section 210 of U.P.
                                    Revenue Code, 2006.

                                    9. Considering the circumstances of the case, petitioner should file
                                    revision in accordance with law.

                                    10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the
                                    writ petiton is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to file revision under
                                    Section 210 of U.P.Revenue Code, 2006 within a period of three
                                    weeks from today along with prayer for condonation of delay. It is
                                    further directed that revisional court shall take liberal view on the
                                    delay condonation matter and decide the revision on merrit
                                    considering the delay condonation matter first expeditiously in
                                    accordance with law.

                                    September 11, 2026
                                    PS*
                                                                                   (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
PRITI SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad