HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9210 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Shashank Tilhari, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had purchased land being Khasra No. 1568 area 0.2150 hectares, 1569 area 0.1770 hectares, 1575 area 0.5220 hectares, 1613 area 0.9410 hectares and 1643 area 0.2660 hectares situated at Village - Para, Pargana - Tehsil and District - Lucknow by means of registered sale deed dated 06.031989. Subsequently, petitioner moved an application under Section 34/35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for mutation of his name in the revenue records, which application was allowed and name of petitioner was mutated in the revenue records. 4. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently, an application for recall of order was preferred by the private respondents stating that the petitioner had purchased the land from one Smt. Usha Devi, who is non existing person and on the basis of complaint proceedings under Section 115 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated and in the inquiry it was discovered that seller of the said land could not be traced out even at the address given in the sale deed, and consequently, orders under Section 115 of the U.P. Revenue Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Yogesh Kesarwani, Shashank Tilhari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Khoob Chandra .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Code, 2006 were finalized recording the land in the name of State. 5. The petitioner had moved an application for recall of order dated 06.04.2024 which application has been rejected by means of impugned order dated 22.05.2025. 6. Learned Standing Counsel at the very outset has submitted that it is highly disputed question of fact, specially when the predecessor in interest of the petitioner could not be traced out and in these circumstances, petitioner has efficacious remedy under Section 115(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for filing a suit for declaration of his rights under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. This Court has perused the impugned order and finds that the matter involves seriously disputed question of fact for which the petitioner has statutory remedy under Section 115(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for filing a suit under Section 144 of the Code, 2006. 9. It is provided that in case suit proceedings are initiated by the petitioner, same shall be considered and decided on the basis of evidence and material adduced during the said proceedings, in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, since the petitioner has alternate statutory remedy under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. September 24, 2025 A. Verma WRIC No. 9210 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench