Shri Narayan Shukla, J - Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Coun­sel. 2. On the basis of lease granted by the Land Management Committee to the petitioner-institution as well as long tenure entry in the revenue record, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the revenue authorities in exercise of power provided under section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, on the ground that under the provisions of that very section only the clerical error can be corrected, but substan­tial right of the petitioner cannot be taken away. In support of his submissions he also cited some decisions of the Board of Reve­nue as well as of this Court, which are quoted herein below: - (1) Janki Prasad v. Nand Kumar, 2004 (96) RD 151 (BR). (2) M/s. Mahalakshmi Land and Finance Co. (Private) Ltd. v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow and others., 1997 (15) LCD 273. (3) Smt. Saroj Singh and another v. Board of Revenue, Lucknow and others., 2008 (105) RD 698 (HC-LB). 3. He further informs that though he has challenged the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Board of Reve­nue through the Revision No. 3084/LR/2009-10, but since he has a prima facie case he has approached this Court for dec­laration of his right for possession over the land in dispute during the pendecy of re­vision. 4. The learned Counsel for the peti­tioner further informs that under the bonafide belief of his right, the petitioner has constructed the building also and a School after receiving recognition from the educa­tional body is running thereon. 5. Thus, he submits that if this Court does not interfere in the matter, the institu­tion, which is in the interest of students may be finished. He further informs that likewise several other institutions have been allotted the land where the schools are running wihtout any action adverse against them. However, though he claims his sub­stantive right of allotment under section 195 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R.Act, but I am of the view that the same is not open for the private educational institution. 6. The lease was granted on 1.8.1967 and 5.10.1974 in favour of the petitioner. However, though he claims his sub­stantive right of allotment under section 195 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R.Act, but I am of the view that the same is not open for the private educational institution. 6. The lease was granted on 1.8.1967 and 5.10.1974 in favour of the petitioner. Since I am of the view that the land could not have been allotted to the petitioner-institution i.e. private institution by the Land Management Committee, the possession or long entry of the lessee, cannot create a per­petual right in his favour. However, consid­ering the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that under the bonafide belief of his right accrued on the basis of lease, the petitioner already constructed a building and further in the legitimate expec­tation, he extends his willingness to offer the other private land of the same very area to the Gaon Sabha, in the interest of justice, I hereby restrain the authorities concerned to take any action against the petitioner subject to offer made by the petitioner of the private land, as aforesaid, within three months and thereafter the proceeding of exchange shall be completed within next three months. If the petitioner fails to offer the same very land within the period stipulated here-in-above, the authorities would be at liberty to proceed against him. 7. Since I have determined the ques­tion finally in the aforesaid manner, I hereby observe that the revision pending before the Board of Revenue shall stand abated in the terms of observations made here-in-above. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of finally. Petition Disposed of.