JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Pradeep Upadhyay for the petitioner. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 8.8.2013 and Additional Commissioner dated 10.12.2013 passed in the proceeding under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. 3. On a complaint an enquiry was conducted by Tehsildar, who submitted his report dated 31.1.2012 stating therein that the land in dispute was recorded either banjar or usar or navin parti in the revenue record but it came to be recorded in the name of Dwivedi Mahadev Prasah Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Yaggya Sthal, Mahila, paragana Karari, tehsil Manjhanpur, district Kaushambi illegally, accordingly, the correction had to be made in the revenue record. It is mentioned in the order dated 8.8.2013 that notices were issued to the interested persons but they did not file any objection. Thereafter the Sub Divisional Officer after hearing the arguments of District Government Counsel held that the entries of the names of the petitioner as well as other persons were without any basis and were forged entries.. Accordingly, their names were directed to be deleted from the revenue record and the entry of banjar, usar and navin parti has been restored. The petitioner filed a revision from the aforesaid order which has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner by order dated 10.12.2013. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 4. The petitioner in the writ petition has stated that the Land Management Committee of Gaon Sabha has allotted the land in dispute for establishing of the College. He submits that in the locality there was no college for girls, therefore, Gaon Sabha provided the land for establishment of the College and on the allotment made by Gaon Sabha, the College building was constructed on part of the land and the remaining part is being utilised for other purposes of the College. This is the only College in the locality and on the basis of licence given by Gaon Sabha the Management had invested huge amount in constructing building etc. Further, on the basis of allotment so made, the name of the College was duly recorded by the Supervisor Kanoongo by order dated 23.3.1982 and the entry in this respect cannot be held as illegal or forged entry as it has been made by a competent revenue authority and the entry cannot be deleted under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. Notices were not served upon the petitioner as such he could not file any objection nor could contest the case before the court below. In such circumstances the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 8.8.2013 and Additional Commissioner dated 10.12.2013 are liable to be set aside. 5. In reply to the aforesaid arguments Standing Counsel for State of U.P. and Sri Diwakar Singh, Standing Counsel for Gaon Sabha, submit that admittedly the land in dispute is navin parti, banjar and usar and this land cannot be allotted to a private school. The allotment as well as mutation on its basis was illegal. Since the Land Management Committee has no authority to allot the land in dispute as such entry made on the basis of forged allotment are standing on the same category as the forged entry. This is highly disputed question of fact and cannot be gone into in summary proceedings. . In such circumstances the revenue authorities have not committed any illegality in deleting the name of the petitioner. 6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. 7. The proceeding under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act is a summary proceeding and the suit is provided under Section 40A of U.P. Land Revenue Act as such the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing suit for establishing his title before the court below. The orders passed in the proceeding under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act are neither relevant nor binding in the suit. Thus, an equally efficacious remedy is available to petitioner where disputed questions of fact can be decided. The petitioner may file a suit in this respect. 8. However, admittedly the petitioner has raised the school building as such for a period of four months the school building shall not be demolished and status quo with regard to the possession be maintained. It is made clear that no further construction shall be made by the petitioner. 9. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is disposed of.