HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8292 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayer:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite party no.3 to decide the complaint dated 23.04.2025 of petitioner and conduct a proper inquiry over such complaint and pass a speaking and reasoned order, within time as per directed by this Hon'ble Court." 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a senior citizen and he had filed an application under Rule 28 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 for partition of his land jointly held by him alongwith co-tenure holders. The Revenue Officials i.e. Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector and other Revenue Officers have colluded with the private persons i.e. the khatauni holders and submitted a wrong report on the basis of instead of the petitioner's share being determined as 9/10, it has been determined as 1/6. Hence the petitioner filed a complaint to the District Magistrate against the Revenue Officials which he wants this Court to direct the District Magistrate to decide. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents has pointed out that the petitioner has remedy under Rule 28 (9) of the U.P. Revenue Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Avinash Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Dr. Om Prakash Gupta .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Code Rules, 2016 and also has pointed out the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector on 06.05.2025 wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has been advised to approach the appropriate Court for determination of his share. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner is aggrieved only against the wrong report submitted by the Revenue Officials. No final order has been passed till date under Rule 28 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 against him. 6. The writ petition has been filed only to create pressure upon the Revenue Officials by seeking a direction to the District Magistrate to look into the complaint of the petitioner. We do not appreciate this kind of conduct of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. September 1, 2025 Darpan Sharma WRIC No. 8292 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench