HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10091 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Sanjeev Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mahesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5 to 7. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that with regard to allegation of encroachment made on the public way, the petitioner alongwith two other persons has filed an application under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Tehsildar, Mahmoodabad, District - Sitapur, wherein it has been alleged that respondent nos. 5 to 7 have forcibly encroached upon the chak road and also their fields situated at Gata No. 121. 3. It is further alleged that when the petitioner tried to find out about the fate of his application, he could not find any case having been registered and also made complaint to the superior authorities, but on receiving no response, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction to get searched out the Case No. ST/1603/2024 (Raj Kumar and Others Vs. Abhinav and Othrs), under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 4. Considering the allegations made by the petitioner against the revenue officials, original paper book pertaining to Case No. 5314 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. T 202510640605314) - Rajesh Kumar Vs. State Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Alok Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey, Mahesh Chandra Shukla Shiv Pratap .....Petitioner(s) District Magistrate, Sitapur And Others .....Respondent(s) of U.P., under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, was called for. 5. Perusal of the aforesaid case indicates that the said case was instituted on the basis of a complaint made by the petitioner and others on 27.02.2024 and another complaint dated 31.12.2024 is also on record. 6. This Court finds that the said case was registered as Rejesh Kumar Vs. State, but Rajesh Kumar is none of the complainant, infact complainants are Shiv Pratap, Rajkumar and Raghuraj. Clearly the case title has been incorrectly entered, due to which reason the petitioner could not appear in the proceedings and participate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were efforts to make certain corrections in the case title, but the correction has not been done correctly. 7. Accordingly, this Court finds merit in the submissions made by the petitioner, therefore, prayer no. ii of the petitioner is allowed. 8. The Tehsildar, Tehsil - Mahmoodabad, District - Sitapur (respondent no. 3) is directed to make necessary corrections in the case title of the case, forthwith. 9. It has also been informed that the next date fixed is 04.11.2025, for which the petitioner submits that he will make appearance and participate in the proceedings. Remaining prayers are on merit and the matter is pending before the Tehsildar, hence this Court would not interfere in such a matter. 10. Let the proceedings be decided expeditiously. The petitioner shall cooperate in the disposal of the case. 11. The writ petition stands partly allowed. October 30, 2025 A. Verma WRIC No. 10091 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench