Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20034 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29173 of 2024 Petitioner :- Bantu Respondent :- State Of Up And 16 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shree Prakash Giri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "A. To set aside and quash impugned order dated 28.02.2024 passed by Revenue Inspector under section 32 and 33 of the Revenue Code 2006 till the disposal of Testamentary case No 47 of 2021 (Bantu In the matter of the Estate of Gorelal (Deceased) Vs NA and till the pendency of the present petition. B. This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue an interim MANDAMUS directing the respondents' authorities to maintain the status of the land in favor of petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court else the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. C. This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus Directing to District Magistrate Agra to initiate Departmental enquiry against Revati Lal Kundaul Revenue Inspector Tehsil Sadar District Agra (Respondent No-6) Ajit Chaudhary Lekhpal Tehsil Sadar District Agra (Respondent No 7) for carried out mutation proceedings under section 32 and 33 of the Revenue Code 2006 during pendency of the proceedings under section 34 of the U.P Revenue Code 2006 and of interim order dated 09.11.2022 passed in Civil Suit No 960 of 2022 Bantu Vs Praveen Kumar. D. This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to directing to respondents to abide by interim order dated 09.11.2022 passed in Original Suit no 960 of 2022 (Bantu vs Praveen Kumar) else the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury ." 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Revenue Inspector directing for recording the name of respondent Nos. 8 to 17. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case is a disputed one and the probate proceedings are pending before this Court and therefore, at the best, the Revenue Inspector could have reported the matter to the Tehsildar and could not have passed the order directing for recording the name of respondent Nos. 8 to 17. 5. Learned Standing Counsel however, submitted that in view of sub-Section (3) of Section 33 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the petitioner has remedy of moving an application before the Tehsildar, in case, he is aggrieved by order passed by the Revenue Inspector. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not sure whether any objection has been filed or not before the Tehsildar. 7. In any view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter as the petitioner has alternative remedy. 8. In case such an objection is filed by the petitioner before the Tehsildar, same shall be considered and decided, expeditiously preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order after hearing all the parties concerned. 9. In case, the objection has yet not been filed by the petitioner, he is permitted to file his objection within one week from today and if, the same is filed within one week, the same shall be considered and decided within the aforesaid period, in accordance with law. 10. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad