Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8324 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1219 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sameer Kumar Pathak And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3 has been accepted by the ofÏce of learned Chief Standing Counsel. The proceedings were initiated by the predecessor in interest of the present petitioners invoking the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue ( Survey and Record Operation) Rules, 1978 ( hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1978"). It is urged that in terms of Rule 27(3) of the Rules, 1978, any person aggrieved by an order of the Survey Naib Teshildar, is entitled to file an appeal before the Assistant Record OfÏcer. It is the case of the petitioners that their predecessor in interest namely Mangal had initiated a time barred appeal in terms of Rule 27(3) alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The delay was condoned by the appellate authority on 4.5.2022 against which the private respondent had preferred a petition before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court under Article 227 bearing Case No.2148 of 2022 (Jairam and others Vs. Assistant Record OfÏcer, Ayodhya and another) which came to be dismissed on 16.6.2022. The submission is that once the petition preferred by the private respondent was dismissed by the High Court and the matter was to be decided on merits, yet the appellate authority by means of the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 had dismissed the appeal on the ground of maintainability. The learned Standing Counsel Shri Tomar submits that the petitioner has statutory remedy of filing a revision inasmuch as Rule 27(3) of the Rules of 1978 specifically provides that the order passed by the Assistant Record OfÏcer shall be subject to provision of Section 219. This statutory provision could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners who submits that this is a fit case where the bar of alternate remedy should not be invoked against the petitioner. Having considered the aforesaid submissions as well as the provisions of Rules of 1978, it is not disputed that Rule 27(3) of the Rules of 1978 clearly indicates that an order passed by the Assistant Record OfÏcer is subject to the revisional jurisdiction in terms of Section 219 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R.Act 1901. In view of the availability of statutory remedy, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition leaving it open for the petitioner to assail the order in terms of the statutory remedy as noticed above. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the petition has been dismissed solely on the ground of availability of alternate remedy. It is made clear that in case if the petitioners take recourse to the statutory remedy, needless to say that the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Shukla Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench