Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62332 Court No. - 85 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39699 of 2024 Petitioner :- Umesh Chauhan Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kuldeep Singh Chahar,Ranjit Bisen Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Objections to the the instructions filed today are taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to accept the petitioner's demarcation proceedings for demarcation of land covered by Gata Nos.156/1/1 and 156/1/2, situated in Mauza Bilandpur Tappa, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar, District Gorakhpur. Second relief claimed is as regards issuance of copy of map of the aforesaid gatas. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner attempted to institute proceedings under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (for short 'the Code, 2006'), the same was not registered for want of copy of map. When the petitioner applied for requisite copy, three reports were endorsed in October- November, 2024, one of which says that map was not found, the other report directs the petitioner to obtain map from the Lekhpal and third report reflects that the concerned officials found some red line over Gata No.156 and, therefore, declined to issue certified copy. 5. On the last occasion, instructions were called for, which have been furnished by learned Standing Counsel. 6. It is argued by learned Standing Counsel that for four reasons, the proceedings under Section 24 of the Code cannot be decided. 7. The Court has perused the instructions which reflect that the Sub-Divisional Officer has expressed his inability to get the demarcation activity done on spot for various reasons which have been factually disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments. 8. Be that as it may, the writ petition has been filed at a stage when even the proceedings under Section 24 of the Code, 2006 have not been registered for want of map. Therefore, any observation made in the instructions would or could be relevant when the matter is registered and parties are provided opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective claims and defence and, then, on the basis of requisite reports, the proceedings would be decided. The order passed under Section 24 of the Code, 2006 would, then, be appealable or revisable, as the case may be, and, therefore, when proceedings have not been registered, the Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with certain directions. 9. Since non-availability of map is the main grievance of the petitioner and the Court finds that the map has been found by the respondent officials but reason for non issuance of its copy has been described in the report dated 08.11.2024 as red marking, the same, in the opinion of the Court, cannot be a ground to deny issuance of certified copy of the same. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with following directions:- (i) The concerned officials of the respondents shall forthwith issue certified copy of the requisite map as described in the report dated 08.11.2024 endorsed at page 44 of the writ petition. (ii) The petitioner shall, then, file application under Section 24 of the Code, 2006 after ensuring compliance of the statutory provisions. (iii) The concerned court/ authority shall allot regular computerized number to the said application and shall proceed to decide the same on merits. (iv) The proceedings shall be decided within a period of four months from the date of its registration. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application under Section 24 of the Code, 2006, and it shall be open for the authority to deal with the same on its own merits. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 AKShukla/- Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad