Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24252 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39279 of 2024 Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Yadav And 22 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Singh,Navaneet Kumar Shukla,Ravindra Kumar Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- Sudhir Bharti,C.S.C.,Devansh Misra,Manoj Kumar Gupta,Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Devansh Mishra and Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- "a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record quash and set aside the ex-parte order dated 24.10.2024 (Annexure No.1) passed by the Respondent No.3 Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Chaurichaura, District Gorakhpur in Case No.5762 of 2024 (Brahm Gyan Singh Vs. State of U.P.)." 3. The order under challenge in the present writ petition is an order passed under Section 101 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 4. A preliminary objection have been raised by learned Standing Counsel as well as learned Senior Advocate appearing for the private respondent that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing a revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are the recorded tenure holders and before passing the order impugned, they have not been heard and therefore, this petition may be entertained as the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. 6. Learned Senior Advocate has pointed out that by order dated 14.10.2022, the revenue entry in favour of the petitioners has been expunged in proceedings under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the said order has not been challenged by the petitioners. On the date, when the order impugned was passed, the petitioners were not recorded tenure holders. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, thereafter submitted that he intends to challenge the order passed under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and in similar matters, interim orders have been granted in favour of other petitioners, who have challenged the order passed under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It has also been submitted by counsel for the petitioners that interim order is operating in instant writ petition and the parties are directed to maintain status quo by order dated 06.01.2025. 8. Since the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing revision, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and in case, the revision is filed within a period of ten days from today along with the stay application before the revisional authority, the stay application filed by the petitioners will be considered and decided within two weeks thereafter. 10. Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of private respondent, has assured that his client will participate in the proceedings before the revisional authority. 11. For a period of three weeks or till disposal of stay application, parties are directed to maintain status quo. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the case on merits and the respondent authorities will pass an order in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad