Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21722 Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32609 of 2024 Petitioner :- Veeru Prasad And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saroj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent-Gaon Sabha. 2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that both the orders impugned dated 20.10.2023 and 05.12.2023 being ex-parte in nature, the same should be set aside by this Court as they run contrary to the interest of the petitioners who are recorded tenureholders of some of the gatas, about which injunction has been granted. 3. Learned Standing Counsel as well as Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi submit that against the orders impugned, the petitioners have remedy of filing appeal under Section 38(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code, 2006') and, therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained. Further submission is that till today, the proceedings under Section 38 of the Code, 2006 have not been finalized as is apparent from the order dated 05.12.2023. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that proceedings under Section 38 have been registered based upon certain reports of Tehsildar, in which the allegation is that petitioners have got their names recorded in respect of land recorded as 'Talab'. 5. Be that as it may, nature of the orders impugned is ex-parte; the proceedings are still said to be pending, as on today and names of the petitioners have not been expunged from the revenue records, as argued by learned counsel for the petitioners. The orders impugned are, in fact, in the nature of injunction restraining alienation of the property involved. 6. Alleged remedy of appeal against the orders impugned would not bar exercise of writ jurisdiction, at this stage, particularly when the proceedings have not been finalized and there appears to be violation of principles of natural justice. 7. Be that as it may, since as per the petitioners themselves, their names are still recorded in the revenue records and the proceedings are pending, the writ petition is being disposed off with the following directions:- (a). The petitioners shall appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned through counsel and shall file response to the report and proceedings annexing therewith documents in their favour, within a period of three weeks from today; (b). The Sub Divisional Officer shall conclude the proceedings under Section 38 after providing full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within next three months, if not already decided. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Jyotsana Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad