Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34364 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6977 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jiledar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Revenue Gov. Of U.P. At Lucknow & 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dwijendra Prasad,Pradyumna Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Avinash Chandra Srivastava,C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The present petition has been filed for the following relief : "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure no.1 to this writ petition) passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial)Agra Division Agra in revision no- 1519 of 2017 (Computerized case no. C201701001519) (Jiledar Singh V/S state) under section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code as well as order dated 29.07.2017 (Annexure no.2 to this writ petition) passed by Sub-Divisional Officer Tehsil Ghiror District Mainpuri in case no. T20160149051038 (State V/S Jiledar and others) under section 38(2) of U.P. Revenue Code. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus not to interfere peaceful possession of the petitioners on the land in dispute in pursuance of order dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure no.1 to this writ petition) passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Agra Division Agra in revision no-1519 of 2017 (Computerized case no. C201701001519) (Jiledar Singh V/S state) under section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code as well as order dated 29.07.2017 (Annexure no.2 to this writ petition) passed by Sub-Divisional Officer Tehsil Ghiror District Mainpuri in case no. T20160149051038 (State V/S Jiledar and others) under section 38(2) of U.P. Revenue Code." 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the proceedings under Section 38(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were decided against the petitioners. Against which, the petitioners have filed a revision which has been dismissed. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that against the orders passed under Section 38(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, the revision is not maintainable as the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of filing an appeal. 5. Since, the petitioner has an alternative remedy, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners to avail the alternative remedy as available to them against the order passed under Section 38(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code. In case, the appeal is filed by the petitioners, the same shall be considered and decided by the appellate court without being prejudiced by the findings recorded by the revisional court. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 S. Singh (Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) Digitally signed by :- SAVITA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad