JUDGMENT 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. 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. Revenue Code, 2006 is a summary order or not. In case it is an order passed in summary proceedings and is subject to an order passed by a competent Court in a title suit, the peethora of decisions which hold that writ petitions against the orders in summary proceedings, are legally not maintainable, would apply in all force to the instant case. 15. In case it is an order passed in summary proceedings and is subject to an order passed by a competent Court in a title suit, the peethora of decisions which hold that writ petitions against the orders in summary proceedings, are legally not maintainable, would apply in all force to the instant case. 15. Section 39 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is relevant for the purpose. The said provision is extracted herein below: - "Section 39 - Certain orders of Revenue Officers not to debar a suit. - No order passed by a Revenue Inspector under section 33, or by a Tahsildar under sub-section (1) of section 35 or by a Sub-Divisional Officer under sub-section (3) of section 38 or by a Commissioner under sub-section (2) of section 35 or subsection (4) of section 38 shall debar any person from establishing his rights to the land by means of a suit under section 144." 16. Apart from the impugned order being amenable to an appeal as provided in sub-section 4 of Section 38 itself, the petitioner has another alternative remedy of filing a suit for establishing her rights over the land in question. Therefore, even though the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition directed against an ex parte order, yet this Court refuses to exercise this discretion in favour of the petitioner only on the ground that it has been passed in summary proceedings, which do not finally determine the title of the parties thereto. 17. Under the circumstances therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner must be relegated to the alternative remedies available to her, either by means of an appeal to the Commissioner under Section 38(4) of the Revenue Code or by means of a regular title suit. 18. The power to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary power and in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I do not consider it a fit case for interference, especially since the proceedings where from the writ petition arises, are summary proceedings and also on account of alternative remedies being available to the petitioner against the same. 19. 19. Besides the submissions that have been made on the merits of the impugned order, in my considered opinion are issues, which can be adequately addressed even by the Commissioner while exercising appellate jurisdiction provided in sub-section 4 of Section 38 itself. 20. For the same reason, I do not consider it appropriate to interfere also on the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent having obtained an order for being recorded over the land in question, is liable to dispose it of, which will create unnecessary complications for the petitioner. 21. In my considered opinion, this aspect can also be considered by the Commissioner in case the impugned order is challenged by way of an appeal and the Commissioner is fully competent to pass an appropriate order safeguarding the interest of the petitioner. 22. Before parting the case, it would be relevant to note that the name of the petitioner came to be recorded over the land in question in proceedings under Section 54 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, which again, are summary proceedings, in view of sub section 8 of Section 54 itself. 23. The judgment cited has also been considered and in my opinion, it has no application in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as it arose from proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which provision is a complete code in itself. The authorities exercising jurisdiction under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, are the only authorities competent to examine the validity of an allotment made under Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. No Revenue or Civil Court can go behind an allotment. This is not a position in the case at hand, which as already noticed herein above, arises from summary proceedings and the orders passed therein are subject to final orders to be passed in a title suit. 24. In view of the above discussion, this Court refuses to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 25. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedies. Petition dismissed.