Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41573 Court No. - 49 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1045 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Ramshri Respondent :- State of U.P. and others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J. 1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the motion to admit this petition to hearing at great length and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ray, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner's application for demarcation has been rejected by the sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Sirsaganj, District Firozabad vide order dated 29.08.2023 on ground that his plot bearing no. 374/3 admeasuring 0.55900 hectare is included in eight khata, making its demarcation impossible. It is remarked that the petitioner ought to file a suit for division of holdings. Instead of challenging the said order or approaching the Revenue Court by instituting a suit for division of holdings under Section 116 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 ('Code' for short), the petitioner has come up with a prayer that a mandamus be issued to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to proceed with the application under Section 24 of the Code. This prayer is apparently misconceived, because the application has already been decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer. 3. The next prayer is that by a mandamus, this Court may direct the Board of Revenue or the District Magistrate, Firozabad to ensure division of the petitioner's Minjumla No. 374(3), under Section 30(2) of the Code and Rule 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016. Now, the petitioner's claim is one for division of holdings and not for the correction of his map. Even if it were the case for correction of his map, the petitioner would have to make an application under Section 30(2) of the Code, which he has not done. With this said, it must also be remarked that so far as the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to redress the petitioner's grievance on account of his plot being included in eight khata is concerned, the remedy appears to be a suit for division of holdings or partition, as it is traditionally called. Neither the petitioner has sued for division of holdings, seeking a partition and separate possession of his plot or his share in the eight khata, in which, it is said to be included, nor has he moved for correction of the map, about which too, the petitioner raises a grievance. 4. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted. 5. This petition is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue such remedy, as advised. Order Date :- March 21, 2025 I. Batabyal (J.J. Munir) Judge Digitally signed by :- ISHAN BATABYAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad