HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 53102 of 2008 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri B.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents, Sri Narendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the Development Authority and Sri H.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the proposed respondent nos. 5 to 7. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for the following relief -: "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent to delete the name of State Government from the revenue record over the plot no. 161 area 2.90 acres and record the name of petitioners over the plot no. 161 and not dispossess the petitioner from the land in dispute." 3. A perusal of the record shows that the instant writ petition was filed wayback in the year 2008 and at the time of admission, learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to delete the first and second relief in the writ petition which was accorded by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.10.2008. In the instant proceeding, the impleadment application is also filed by Sri H.P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the proposed respondent nos. 5 to 7. 4. Now, the petitioners have confined the relief only to the extent that a Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anup Kumar Srivastava, B.D. Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anil Tiwari, Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Ashok Pandey, C.S.C., H.P. Mishra, Narendra Pratap Singh Jai Nath And Antoher .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Others .....Respondent(s) direction be issued to the respondent to delete the name of State Government from the revenue record qua Plot No. 161 area 2.90 acres and in this regard, objection has also been raised by learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the entry has already been rectified and there is an exhaustive procedure provided under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and in case the petitioners are aggrieved, they may invoke the proceeding strictly in accordance with law as enumerated under the Code/Rules. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent vehemently contends that the excess land has been declared under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 as the same has not been challenged and later on, under the Kanshi Ram Awas Yojna, certain dwelling units have been raised. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to keep the matter pending consideration as the petitioners have confined the relief to the extent that the entry may be corrected in the revenue record. Needless to say, it is open to the petitioners to press the relief before the competent authority in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid leave, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. May 5, 2026 Sumit S WRIC No. 53102 of 2008 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad