Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8579 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1186 of 2025 Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Pratap Singh,Anurag Shukla,Mohammad Shameem Rizvi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. An application has been moved by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking amendment in the array of the parties inasmuch as in the suit filed under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (for short, 'the Code, 2006), there were certain private-respondents, out of which, five of them have not been impleaded in the instant petition. It is also stated that Goan Sabha concerned has also not been impleaded. For the aforesaid, the application has been filed. Having considered the aforesaid, the application is formal in nature and it does not impact on the merits of the case. Accordingly, since it is for correction in the array of the parties, thus, the application is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall carry out necessary correction during the course of the day. Under challenge is the order dated 02.07.2024 and 30.08.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 in proceedings under Section 116 of the Code, 2006. Learned standing counsel for the State has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition inasmuch as against the order impugned orders, the petitioner has adequate statutory remedy in terms of Code, 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner while refuting the aforesaid submissions, has submitted that since the impugned orders are without jurisdiction, hence, the same can be assailed in a writ petition and the bar for alternate statutory remedy may not be considered against the petitioner. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 did not have any jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders inasmuch as in a suit under Section 116 of the Code, 2006, it is only the division of the land holding which can be done and any attempt of the parties inter se themselves or the respondent No.2 to demarcate or divide the property which includes the construction is without jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Officer concerned. This Court finds that the aforesaid objection was never raised by the petitioner before the Court below while the suit was being contested and decreed. Moreover, this Court is conscious of the fact that any observations made may impact the right of the petitioner adversely, however, without entering into the merits of the plea raised by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court, after considering whether the petition should be entertained, is of the clear opinion that the petitioner has alternate statutory remedy against the impugned orders. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition which is dismissed. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench