Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30237 Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21875 of 2024 Petitioner :- Harinam Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. Heard Sri Yogesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to record / Amaldaramad the order dated 27.10.2023 on the revenue records. (b) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is recorded tenure holder of the plots 540, 383, 275, 652 and 138 situated at village Sihorawan, Pargana Kaswar Sarkari, Tehsil Rajatalab, District Varanasi. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner was rightly recorded as 'Harinam Singh' in the revenue records of the fasli year 1401-1406 in respect of above-mentioned plots. However, records of the fasli year 1401-1406 is not available in the record room. He further submits that the name of the petitioner in the fasli year 1407-1412 has been wrongly entered as 'Harnath' and since then the same is continuing in the subsequent fasli years. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the aforesaid wrong entry regarding the name of the petitioner in the revenue record, he has been deprived of the PM Kishan Samman Nidhi and other benefits. The petitioner after coming to know of the aforesaid discrepancy in the revenue records, he preferred an application under Section 38(6) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Tehsildar Rajatalab, District Varanasi (respondent no. 3), inter-alia, praying for the correction of his name in the revenue records. He also submitted the copy of the family register issued by the Gram Panchayat concerned showing the correct name of the petitioner as 'Harinam Singh'. 6. He further submits that along with the petitioner there are two more co- sharers of the plots who are the real brothers of the petitioner and there is no dispute regarding the name of the petitioner as 'Harinam Singh'. The aforesaid application was forwarded to the Revenue Inspector (respondent no. 4) for disposal. 7. The respondent no. 4 conducted an enquiry in the prescribed manner and after due enquiry the respondent no. 4 passed an order for the said correction in the records on 27.10.2023. Thereafter, the file was forwarded to the Incharge Abhilekhagar (respondent no. 3) for Amaldaramad of the aforesaid order dated 27.10.2023, but till date the said order for correction passed by the respondent no. 4 has not been complied with. 8. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the order dated 27.10.2023 as aforesaid was not complied with, he approached the respondent nos. 2 & 3 but no action has been taken by them in favour of the petitioner. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that sufficient material / document in support of the petitioner's case has been provided twice, to the respondent no. 3 on being informed that the original file in which the aforesaid correction was ordered has been misplaced from the record room. 10. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents submits that the original record containing the aforesaid order / report dated 27.10.2023 is not available in the record room and moreover the then Revenue Inspector namely Sri Shiv Mangal Maurya has been retired and the original application containing the order / report dated 27.10.2023 passed by the then Revenue Inspector is not available in the record room, as such the said order / report seems to be forged and fictitious. Further, it is an old matter, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy available under Section 31/32 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 11. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 dated 18.11.2024, wherein it has been stated that the Registrar Kanoongo has submitted a report on 17.08.2024 stating therein that the Annexure filed by the petitioner on page nos. 33 to 37 of the instant writ petition is not available in the record room. Further, in paragraph 10 of the aforesaid counter affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner has proper remedy to file an application under Section 31/32 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the court of Sub Divisional Officer and get his name changed in the revenue record after collecting credible evidence and as such the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative remedyunder the Code of 2006 and the Amaldaramad cannot be done on the report of the Revenue Inspector who has already been retired and has given back date report after retirement. In response to the said counter affidavit, the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit dated 02.12.2024 denying the averments made in the counter affidavit. In categorical reply to paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, the petitioner has stated in paragraph 6 of the said rejoinder affidavit that the application was filed under Section 38(6) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for correction of his name in the revenue record and the same was allowed, moreover, the said report / order dated 27.10.2023 has never been challenged before any court of law. 12. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it has nowhere stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that there is any denial by the then Revenue Inspector Shiv Mangal Maurya that he did not have submitted the report. However, an unreasonable presumption has been drawn by the deponents of the counter affidavit merely on the basis of non availability of the original papers. 13. Section 38(6) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides as under: "Notwithstanding anything contained in other provisions of this Code, the Revenue Inspector may correct any undisputed error or omission in the record of rights (khatauni) or khasra in such manner and after making such inquiry, as may be prescribed." 14. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is abundantly clear that the order / report dated 27.10.2023 submitted by the then Revenue Inspector namely Sri Shiv Mangal Maurya has not categorically denied the same but it has been presumed to be disputed only due to non availability of the file in the revenue records. The authority of the Revenue Inspector to submit the report as provided under Section 38(6) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is also not disputed. 15. In so far as the question of availability of alternative remedy is concerned the same does not constitute any valid ground to refuse the exercise of the statutory power as contemplated under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 itself. 16. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that in case if the petitioner furnishes the complete sets of documents including the copy of the aforesaid report / order dated 27.10.2023 and the extract of relevant Khatauni and the copy of the relevant extract of family register before the Tahsildar / respondent no. 3 within ten days, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and appropriate order shall be passed on the said application by the learned Tehsildar concerned, within a maximum period of one month from the date of submission of the aforesaid application along with the certified copy of this order. 17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Arif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad