Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39038 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 983 of 2023 Petitioner :- Tasleem Hasan Khan Respondent :- Board Of Revenue, U.P. Lko. Thru. Secy. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Farhan Habib,Pankaj Gupta,Syed Aftab Ahmad Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 3 and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent no.4. 2. In light of the order by this Court dated 11.12.2023, a report submitted by Additional Chief Secretary, is taken on record. 3. The controversy raised in the present case relates to land situated at Khata No. 62, Gata No.52 area 3.554 hectares situated at Village Fulaiya, Pargana, Tehsil & District Pilibhit. 4. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the ancestor of the petitioner has created a Waqf (Waqf Al- Alkhair) in respect of the said land which was registered in the Sunni Waqf Board as Waqf No.23 and even according to the certificate issued by the Sunni Central Waqf Board, the land in question, area around 430 acres, is recorded as Waqf Talab, Dharmarth Daan Masarifedaan Talab. It has been stated that in the Khatauni pertaining to fasli 1359F, the land was recorded as 'Talab Gaon Sabha' in place of 'Waqf Talab / Dharmarth Daan Masarifedaan Talab' and on account of the said entry, it was alleged that the private respondents are trying to take possession of the disputed land. 5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that in this regard application has been moved by the petitioner under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act for correction of the said entry, which was allowed by means of the order dated 13.08.2010 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Sadar), Pilibhit. Endorsing the fact that there was an error in the revenue entry and he was satisfied with the claim made by the petitioner that his name was being recorded in the revenue entries prior to the same recorded as a Talab, accordingly, he passed an order for correction in the revenue record. An appeal against the revision was preferred by the Gaon Sabha being aggrieved by the order dated 13.08.2010 whereby the entry in the name of Gaon Sabha was deleted and the name of petitioner was recorded in the place. The said revision was numbered as Revision No.02328 of 2018. The revisional court duly looked into all the revenue records and after examining all the revenue records, the revisional court was of the view that prior to abolition of Zamadari, the Waqf Abdul Rajjak was recorded as a khevat in category 15 as a Talab, which is also indicated in the Khatauni for the relevant year. After abolition of Zamadari, the said land fell in as a Gaon Sabha land as per Section 6/117 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act and after giving compensation to the Waqf their rights have stand extinguished for the said land and the said facts were also depicted from the subsequent revenue record. He has further endorsed the fact that the amount of compensation was duly given to the Waqf in installments which were also demonstrated before the revisional courts. He has further recorded the fact that during the consolidation operations, no objections were raised by the petitioner and merely on an application under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act moved for correction in the order, which has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, was held clearly erroneous and accordingly, it allowed the revision in favour of the Gaon Sabha. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Additional Commissioner (Administration) dated 05.02.2020 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, which has also been rejected upholding the order of the revisional court against which the present writ has been preferred before this Court. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has re-agitated all the points as urged before the Revenue Authorities. 7. Undoubtedly, the proceedings under Section 33/39 are summary proceedings pertaining to the correction of the revenue records and do not extent to declaring the right or title of land in regard to any of the tenure holders. I find that in exercise of the powers conferred under the Land Revenue Act and the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, the authority had duly considered the revenue records and endorsed the findings to the effect that after abolition of Zamadari, the said land fell as Gaon Sabha land in light of provisions contained in Section 6/117 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. and undoubtedly, the said land is recorded as a Talab and hence, I do not find any infirmity in the aforesaid finding recorded by both the revisional courts. 8. After examining the aforesaid provisions, this Court is of the considered view that in case the petitioner seriously disputes the right and title of the said land, then he has efficacious remedy of filing a suit for declaration before the competent court, where he shall be at liberty to adduce all the materials to indicate that he is the owner of the said land. The title cannot be decided in summary proceedings under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act and undoubtedly, the decree passed in such suit proceedings would be binding upon the revenue courts with regard to the ownership and title of the disputed land. Accordingly, the petitioner also does not dispute the said legal proposition and accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, without interfering with the orders passed by the revenue authority, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the court of competent jurisdiction to stake his claim with regard to the title of the disputed land. 9. Accordingly, subject to the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 9.7.2025 KR Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench