HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 1004631 of 2004 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. 1. Heard Sri Moti Chand Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent - Gaon Sabha and Sri Saumya Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Smt. Malti Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.8. 2. The present writ petition has been filed on following prayer : "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 20.06.2004 (Annexure No.8) and order dated 31.07.2004 contained as Annexure No.9 to the writ petition. ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to demolish the farm house of the petitioner and not interfere in the possession of the petitioner on the existing area of khasra No.415. iii) any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner." 3. Factual matrix of the case is that an application under Section 28 of the Revenue Act was filed by respondent No.4, which was contested by the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajendra Prasad, Moti Chand Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C, Awadhesh Kumar, Malti Mishra, Mohan Singh, R.N Gupta, Vineet Kumar Mishra Chhabilal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru Secretary Revenue Deptt. And 8 Ors .....Respondent(s) petitioner by filing objection that the excess land be settled by taking land from him. Application was filed for correction of map in Gata Nos.414 and 419. On the basis of report of Anurekhak - Chief Tracer an order was passed on 20.06.2001 - annexure 8 to the writ petition, whereby encroachment was found on the land of chakroad and house was constructed and direction was issued for correction of map with the finding that encroachment has been made on the land of chak road. 4. Against the order passed on 20.06.2001, a revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad and after considering the relevant objection raised by the petitioner and taking into consideration the report of Chief Tracer, finding has been returned that no error has been committed and the revision was dismissed. 5. In case, there is error apparent on the map, the correction made does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The impugned orders 20.06.2004 and 31.07.2004 do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and are just and valid. 6. This Court declines to interfere in the impuned order in exercise of discretionary power under Article 226 Constitution of India. 7. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. November 13, 2025 Adarsh K Singh WRIC No. 1004631 of 2004 2 (Irshad Ali,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench