HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31789 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Petitioner before this Court claims to be the bhumidhar in possession of arazi no. 192 measuring 0.154 hectare. She had instituted the Original Suit No. 1409 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Havali, Azamgarh seeking relief of prohibitory permanent injunction against the private respondent nos. 5 and 6. During pendency of civil suit temporary injunction was granted by the trial court on 31.8.2002 restraining the defendant/respondent nos. 5 and 6 from interfering in the possession of petitioner. 2. On the other hand, private respondent nos. 5 and 6 filed an application under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act of 1901') for correction of map of khasra no. 191 before the Chief Revenue Officer. On the report having been received the map was corrected vide order dated 21.3.2006. Petitioner filed a restoration application on 13.3.2008 alongwith delay condonation application. The said application was rejected by the Chief Revenue Officer on 16.6.2008, against which petitioner filed the Revision No. 3096 (LR) 2007-08 before the Board of Revenue, Lucknow. The revision was allowed and both the orders dated 21.3.2006 and 16.6.2008 were set aside and matter was remanded to Chief Revenue Officer for deciding the same afresh. 3. Post remand, the Chief Revenue Officer dismissed the application filed under Section 28 of the Act of 1901 on the ground that temporary injunction is operating in the suit instituted by the petitioner filed in Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Alok Kumar Pandey, Kuvar Akhilesh Singh, Susheel Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rameshwar Prasad Shukla Urmila .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) respect of Gata No. 192. The order dated 16.9.2019 was challenged in the revision before the Additional Commissioner (Administration) by the private respondent nos. 5 and 6 which has been allowed by the order impugned. Hence, present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as civil suit filed by petitioner is pending consideration and temporary injunction having been granted the proceedings under Section 28 of the Act of 1901 cannot proceed and the Chief Revenue Officer had rightly dismissed the application filed by the private respondent nos. 5 and 6. According to him, the revisional court had wrongly allowed and remanded the revision to the Chief Revenue Officer for reconsideration. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in case of Chet Ram and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (4) ADJ 582. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has defended the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 6. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 7. It is an admitted case of petitioner that she is bhumidhar of Gata No. 192 measuring 0.154 hectare. On the contrary private respondent nos. 5 and 6 claimed that they are the bhumidhar in possession over Gata No. 191 measuring 0.192 kadi. Application under Section 28 of the Act of 1901 has been moved by them for correction of map before the revenue authorities, which is summary in nature. The suit filed by petitioner is in respect of Gata No. 192 and relief sought therein is for prohibitory permanent injunction against the private respondent nos. 5 and 6. It is not the case of petitioner that she had sought any declaration in the suit but is only a simplicitor suit for injunction, in which temporary injunction has been granted by the trial court restraining the defendant/private respondent nos. 5 and 6 from interfering in the possession of petitioner till disposal of the suit. 8. In the summary proceeding initiated by the private respondent nos. 5 and 6 under Section 28 of the Act of 1901 only the correction of map of WRIC No. 31789 of 2025 2 Gata No. 191 has been sought. The revisional court had rightly found that the temporary injunction order does not restrain from the revenue authorities in deciding the case under Section 28 of the Act of 1901. 9. Reliance placed upon the decision of coordinate Bench of this Court by petitioner's counsel does not help his case as no case for declaration has been instituted by either of the parties and suit filed by petitioner in the year 2002 in respect of Gata No. 192 is only for the relief of prohibitory permanent injunction against the private respondent nos. 5 and 6. In the said judgment, coordinate Bench of this Court had held that writ petition in summary proceeding is not maintainable and the appropriate remedy is approaching the competent court by filing a regular suit. Petitioner has not sought the relief of declaration in respect of Gata No. 191 nor there is any restrain order in the suit restraining the defendant/respondent nos. 5 and 6 for initiating such proceedings. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that no interference is required with the order impugned. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. The Chief Revenue Officer, Azamgarh is directed to proceed with the proceedings under Section 28 of the Act of 1901, post remand by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), and conclude the same, in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. September 11, 2025 Shekhar WRIC No. 31789 of 2025 3 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad