The main legal point established in the judgment is that proceedings under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are limited to correction of errors and omissions and cannot decide a dispute involving a question of title. The judgment also emphasizes the availability of alternative remedies for the petitioner.

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. –

All these petitions involve identical questions and only the plot numbers are different.

2. Heard Shri M.D. Singh 'Shekhar', learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

3. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, respondent No. 1 in proceedings under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 regarding plot No. 2756 area 0.3040 hectares situated in Village Baghadu, Pargana and Tehsil Duddhi, District Sonbhadra.

4. By this order, the name of the petitioner has been ordered to be expunged and the respondent has been ordered to be recorded thereon.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned is ex parte, having been passed without any notice or information to the petitioner and without hearing her. It is also submitted that the proceedings under Section 38 of the Revenue Code are for correction of errors and omissions only. However, the order impugned amounts to a decision regarding title, and is, therefore, beyond the scope of the proceedings itself.

6. In response to a query by this Court, Shri M.D. Singh has submitted that since the order is ex parte and without jurisdiction, existence of a statutory alternative remedy is not a bar. This court is competent to entertain the writ petition despite existence of a statutory alternative remedy.

7. He has lastly submitted that no error or omission in the revenue entry in favour of the petitioner has been pointed out in the impugned order and thereby the title of the parties has been decided, which was not permissible in view of the explanation to Section 38, which reads as follows: -

"Explanation - The power to correct any error or omission under this section shall not be construed to include the power to decide a dispute involving question of title."

8. It is also submitted that in view of Section 40 of the Revenue Code, the entries in the Khatauni prepared in accordance with the provisions of this Code are presumed to be true until proved to the contrary.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner as also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Noor Mohd. and others v. Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division reported in 2016 (5) ADJ 540 , especially paragraph 37, 38 and 39 thereof.

10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record and the judgment cited.

11. Counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially in cases, where the order impugned has been passed ex parte or without opportunity of hearing. He is also correct when he submits that a dispute of title cannot be decided by means of proceedings under Section 38 of the Revenue Code in view of the categorical bar contained in the explanation extracted above.

12. The provisions contained in Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are analogous to the provisions contained in Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The provisions of Section 33/39 of the Act, were enacted for making corrections in the revenue records. The orders in these proceedings were required to be passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. Even under Section 38, the authority competent to pass the order is the Sub Divisional Officer. Sub-section 4 of Section 38 provides that against an order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, an appeal lies to the Commissioner.

13. The proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act were summary proceedings, in view of Section 40A of the Act being subject to the orders passed in regular title suits. For this reason, writ petitions against these orders have repeatedly been held to be not maintainable.

14. In the aforesaid background, it needs to be examined as to whether an order passed in proceedings under Section 38 of the U.P