Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26655 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4446 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dineshwar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 15 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing to the respondents to implement the order dated 29.08.2023 passed by respondent no. 3 in case no.5003 of 2018, computer case no. T201814291105003 (Dineshwar Versus Lalta), under section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 on the spot. ii. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondent no.3 & 4 to give the physical possession on the spot over gata no.2361 & 2363 in pursuance of the order dated 16.11.2024 passed by respondent no.2 & order dated 29.08.2023 passed by respondent no.3" 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have been finalized and boundary marks have been installed but petitioner has not been put in possession. It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that in view of Section 24(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the petitioner is entitled to be put in possession by the respondent authorities. 4. Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is reproduced as under:- Disputes regarding boundaries. - (1) The Sub-Divisional Officer may, on his own motion or on an application made in this behalf by a person interested, decide, by summary inquiry, any dispute regarding boundaries on the basis of existing survey maps or, where they have been revised in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, on the basis of such maps, but if this is not possible, the boundaries shall be fixed on the basis of actual possession. (2) If in the course of an inquiry into a dispute under sub- section (1), the Sub- Divisional Officer is unable to satisfy himself as to which party is in possession or if it is shown that possession has been obtained by wrongful dispossession of the lawful occupant, the Sub-Divisional Officer shall- (a) in the first case, ascertain by summary inquiry who is the person best entitled to the property, and shall put such person in possession; (b) in the second case, put the person so dispossessed in possession, and for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary andshall then fix the boundary accordingly. (3) Every proceeding under this section shall, as far as possible, be concluded by the Sub-Divisional Officer within three months from the date of the application. (4) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer may prefer an appeal before the Commissioner within thirty days of the date of such order. The order of the Commissioner shall be final." 5. Unless, there is a finding by the court below while deciding the proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, that the petitioner has been ousted illegally, then only he can be put in possession. No such finding has been recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner for grant of possession. 6. In case, the petitioner has been dispossessed, he has remedy of filing a suit for possession under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as available to him under law. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad