HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11327 of 2025 Court No. - 22 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajiv Kr. Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kr. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 17.11.2017 passed by Naib Tehsildar Mall, Lucknow; order dated 1.8.2024 passed by S.D.M., Judicial Malihabad Lucknow and order dated 31.7.2025 passed by Commissioner Mandal Lucknow in case title of Subhash Singh vs. Vineet Rastogi. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders are absolutely erroneous because merely filing the revision and appeal by mentioning incorrect section will not be a ground to reject the same. 4. However, from perusal of the record, it is clear that while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, the S.D.M. Judicial, Malihabad Lucknow clearly mentioned that the appellant/petitioner has liberty to file appropriate appeal under Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code before the competent authority. However, the petitioner instead of availing his remedy, preferred a revision against the order of the S.D.M. Judicial, Malihabad Lucknow. Therefore, there is no illegality in the orders passed by the Commissioner as well as S.D.M. as the applicant has liberty to file appropriate proceeding under Section under Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code before the competent forum. 5. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of. December 1, 2025 Vandana Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajiv Kumar Bajpai, Archana Singh, Ashish Kumar Dixit, Rahul Dixit, Suparna Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) Subhash Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench