Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:59571 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35379 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ram Raj And 10 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.C.Tiwari(Ac),Ravi Shankar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard Sri A.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 03.11.2023 passed by a revenue team headed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Handia District Prayagraj, whereby on the basis of some alleged settlement on the spot, land measuring 0.091 hectare covered by Gata No. 177 was settled amongst the parties present on the spot. 3. When the writ petition was entertained for the first time on 14.11.2024, this Court expressed surprise over the administrative exercise undertaken on the spot and directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Handia, Prayagraj to remain present before the Court. Later on various orders were passed inviting personal affidavits from the officers concerned. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders, personal affidavits have been filed and in the affidavit dated 18.01.2025, reliance has been placed upon a Government Order dated 07.06.2023 stating that the said Government Order contemplates settlement of dispute on the basis of compromise. 5. Sri A.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that private respondents are not the co-tenure holders of the Gata in question and they being strangers to the proceedings, settlement of the petitioners' gata is an exercise which is alien to law. 6. Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel by referring to Rule 22(7 and 8) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2016) submits that the matter under Section 24 of the Code is decided between only the co-tenure holders but any other affected party can also be heard. 7. Having considered the submissions and having carefully perused the record as well as the stand taken by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the personal affidavit, this Court is of the view that in stead of carrying out an exercise on administrative side, proper proceedings under Section 24 of the Code should have been registered where not only the petitioners but also the private respondents could have their say on the merits of their claim qua the land on the spot. 8. In view of the statutory scheme, especially Rule 22(7 and 8) of the Rules of 2016, this writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations/ directions:- (1) The petitioner is permitted to file appropriate application under Section 24 of the Code after ensuring compliance of Rules of 2016 and after arraying the private respondents as parties to the same. (2) In case such an application is filed within three weeks from today, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned shall allot a computerized number to the same and shall issue notice to the private respondents. (3) After ensuring service of notice upon the private respondents, the proceedings shall be decided in accordance of law within a period of next three months after providing full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. (4) The order impugned dated 03.11.2023 is rendered effect-less as far as settlement of land through compromise is concerned and proceedings under Section 24 of the Code shall be decided in accordance with law by not relying upon the said order. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Abhishek Singh Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad