IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy under the U.P. Revenue Code limits the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions, emphasizing the importance of following prescribed legal procedures and the necessity of proper locus standi in initiating boundary demarcation proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) :

1. Heard Shri Jai Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Smt. Anjali Upadhyay and Shri Vineet Pandey, learned counsels have accepted notice of the writ petition on behalf of respondent Nos. 26 and 27, respectively. However, they did not appear when the case was heard.

2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 i.e. disputes regarding boundaries and is directed against the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Addl. Commissioner (Administration) 2nd, Meerut in appeal under Section 24 (4) of the Code registered as Case No. 1691 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the appeal has been rejected and the order dated 4.7.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dadri in Case No. 24060 of 2021 (Heere and others versus Devindra and others) under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 directing the demarcation of the plot No. 436 situate in village Haibatpur, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, has been upheld.

3. A supplementary affidavit dated 2.5.2024 has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioner, which is taken on record.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated at the instance of the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 for the demarcation of Plot No. 436M, area 0.3467 hectare and Plot No. 287M area 0.900 hectares. The petitioner and the respondent No. 17 to 24 are the owners of Plot Nos. 285M, 253M, 290/3 and 433/2. The respondent Nos. 8 to 16 are the recorded owners of Plot Nos. 434 and 290/1. The plot Nos. 285, 253, 290 and 433 are not adjacent to plot No. 436 of which the demarcation was sought. The Revenue Inspector is stated to have submitted his report on 8.1.2023 which was forwarded by the Tehsildar on 9.1.2023 to the Sub Divisional Officer concerned mentioning that the area of Plot No. 436 is 5.7990 hectares whereas the area was only 0.3467 hectares as reflected in the Khatauni pertaining to 1427-1432 Fasli filed on record as Annexure-3. The Sub Divisional Officer on the basis of an incorrect report passed the order dated 4.7.2023 directing the demarcation of the Plot No. 436. The order dated 4.7.2023 was challenged in appeal which too has met with the same fate.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders by submitting that both the orders dated 4.7.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, as also the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Addl. Commissioner in appeal under Section 24 (4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have been passed on incorrect report of the Revenue Inspector, no physical division of Plot No. 436, area 5.7990 hectare and 436M area 0.3467 hectare has not been done and no demarcation could be done without physical division, the provisions contemplated under Section 24 and Rule 22 of the Rules, 2016 have not been complied with. The Greater Noida Authority as also the U.P. State are the co-tenure holders of Khasra plot No. 436M but the area possessed by them has not been given in the report forming the basis of the impugned orders, the co-tenure holders of Khasra Plot No. 436 as recorded in the Khatauni were not made party to the proceedings.

6. In the supplementary affidavit dated 2.5.2024 in Para 12 thereof, it has been stated that Plot No. 436, area 5.7990 hectare has already been acquired under Notification under the Land Acquisition Act and the compensation of the acquired land has already been received by the father of the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 being area 5.4523 hectares and the remaining area of Plot No. 436 i.e. area 0.3467 has been sold by the tenure holders to the irrigation department through registered sale deeds. The total area of plot No. 436 as well as 287 are in the name of the Greater Noida Development Authority and the Irrigation Department of the State of U.P. and the same is not under the ownership of