HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9402 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 22.02.2025 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lucknow in exercise of powers U/S 33/39 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and also the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by Commissioner, Lucknow Division Lucknow which has rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 3. The basic facts leading to the present writ petition has neither been stated in the writ petition nor any copy of the objections nor revision has been filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Court is relying only upon the facts from the impugned order. It seems that the petitioner had moved an application for correction of the revenue records U/S 33/39 of U.P. Revenue Code. His application was dismissed on 21.06.2025 for want of prosecution but subsequently the matter was on record and heard on merits. 4. It has been stated that present dispute pertains to property situated at Khata No. 155 Gata No. 394 total area of 82-12-11 Bigha which has been declared to be Banjar situated at Gram Dhawan Post and Tehsil Lucknow as well as with regard to Khata No. 206 Gata No. 394 area 61-13-8 which has also been recorded as Banjar in the revenue records. The said proceedings were initiated in 2006 on the basis of report of revenue authorities holding that the name of the petitioners have wrongly been entered in the revenue records. 5. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate while discussing the facts of the case has recorded the name of the Badri Prasad S/o Guru Dayal is found to be recorded in the revenue records in the fasli year 1379 in Gata No. 394 as a Sankramaniya Bhumidhar. While in the record pertaining to fasli 1370-1089 fasli the record was not available. He has further stated that there is no record indicating how the name of Badri Prasad was entered into record pertaining to 1379 fasli which prima facie is false and fictitious. He has further noticed that in the khatauni pertaining to fasli years 1382-1384 in Khata No. 68, Gata No. 394 the name of Ganga Ram S/o Bhognath has been recorded Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Kumar Tiwari, Anurakt Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Manish Kumar And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) while in Khata No. 146, name of Mahavir S/o Ram Narayan and in Gata No. 394 and Khata No. 154, name of Mahesh S/o Merai has been recorded as Class-2 Sirdar. 6. Similarly, he has discussed the entries pertaining to the said fasli years. He has further recorded that Gata No. 394 is in fact as recorded as Banjar and after active collusion and connivance of the revenue authorities without there being any order of the competent authority, the name of tenure holders including the petitioners has been fraudulently entered. 7. The petitioners in the said proceedings could not demonstrate or give any cogent reasons as to how their names have been recorded in the revenue records and consequently the application for recall preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 23.02.2006 has been rejected and the land has been directed to be recorded as Banjar. The petitioners thereafter had preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Lucknow which has been rejected. Where also the revisional authority has recorded that despite giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, no document has been filed by them to demonstrate as to how the name of Badri Prasad was recorded in the revenue records of fasli 1379 as Sankramnia Bhumidhar and rejected the revision. 8. In the present proceeding also both the impugned orders have been challenged and the only ground raised is that the entries have been existing for long time and they could not have been disturbed but no material has been adduced indicating that how the entries were recorded in the fasli 1379 in the name of Badri Prasad. 9. Accordingly, in absence of any material, this Court does not find any ground for interference in both the impugned orders. Apart from the above, the issue decided by both the authorities only relates to the revenue entries for the purpose of collecting revenue and in case the petitioners' claim for right title and interest in the said property, they have adequate remedy by filing an appropriate suit for declaration where they have full opportunity to adduce evidence with regard to their right or title over the said land. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the said impugned orders. 9. In view of aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. September 25, 2025 Ravi/ WRIC No. 9402 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench