Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11513 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1675 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kayoom Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Mansoor,Mohammad Danish Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhirendra Kumar Mishra,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Mohan Singh, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.5. Shri Dhirendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant/ caveator, even though he is not a party in the instant proceedings or in the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Learned Standing Counsel, Mohan Singh and Shri Dhirendra Kumar Mishra have vehemently raised a preliminary objection against the order impugned passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the petitioner has a statutory remedy of filing an appeal in terms of Section 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Responding to the aforesaid objections, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been deprived of an opportunity to contest the proceedings in the real since inasmuch as an opportunity was sought to cross examine the Lekhpal which has been refused. It has also been submitted that there are certain proceedings which were initiated by the petitioner under Section 67 -A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which was dismissed, against which the petitioner has filed a petition which is pending before this Court since 2023. It is also urged that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court in Writ-C No.3750 of 2024 which came to be allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgement and order dated 25.4.2024 wherein the matter was remanded to respondent no.4 to consider the proceedings afresh after affording full opportunities to the parties. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is urged that the petitioner may be permitted to agitate his grievances before this Court and since the order is without jurisdiction and without providing an opportunity of hearing, the bar of alternate remedy may not be pressed against the petitioner in the instant case. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of material available on record, needless to say that an order dated 4.2.2025 has been passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It is not disputed that the petitioner had sought to cross examine the Lekhpal, which as per the petitioner, was rejected. However, it is undisputed that the said order was never assailed. Once the orders at relevant stage of original proceedings have culminated in a final order dated 4.2.2025 which undisputedly is assailable in an appeal under Section 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, in this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition, leaving it open for the petitioner to take recourse to the statutory remedy as may be available to him in law and needless to say that in case if such a remedy is availed, the same shall be considered and decided by the authority in accordance with law. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case on merits and the petitioner has been relegated solely on account of availability of statutory remedy. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Shukla Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench