Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82353 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33339 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ramhit Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alauddin,Fakhruddin Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Gupta,Surendra Prasad Yadav Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. Short counter affidavit dated 17.11.2024 filed in the Court today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Alauddin, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Amresh Kumar Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri Surendra Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Awaseey Patta in respect of plot bearing No.244/2 having area 0.006 hectare was made under the resolution of the Land Management Committee duly approved by the then Sub Divisional Officer in favour of the father (now deceased) of the petitioner on 08.09.1996 and since then the petitioner is in possession of the said plot of land. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on an application/complaint filed by the private respondent no.5, the proceedings under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated on 27.06.2022 against which the petitioner submitted his objections. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that the said property is registered as Abadi in the revenue records. The said case was registered as Case No.1043/2022 (Gabodhar versus Ramhit and others) under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 5. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without taking into consideration the objections raised by the petitioner, the Additional Collector vide order dated 09.09.2024 allowed the aforesaid case initiated under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and thereby cancelled the said patta. 6. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceeding for cancellation of the patta, at the instance of opposite party no.5, was initiated much beyond the period of limitation i.e. after more than 23 years and as such the entire proceeding is vitiated under law. 7. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents raised preliminary objection regarding the entertainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of availability of statutory remedy to the petitioner under Section 210 of the Code, in view of the provision as provided under Section 66(3) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 8. After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner molded his prayer to the extent that the instant writ petition be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as provided under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid situation, without adverting on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to avail the remedy as provided under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the court concerned within a period of two weeks from today. 10. It is provided that in case a revision as provided under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is filed by the petitioner within the period fixed by this Court herein above, the learned Revisional Court shall entertain the said Revision on merits and shall decide the same, strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously say within a period of six months, as provided under Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 183 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. 12. With the aforesaid liberty and direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Abhishek Gupta Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad