JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner/ Gaon Panchayat Garva, Sri Tej Bali Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties and Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the Caveator/private opposite party No.5. 2. By mean of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :- "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 04.02.2023 (Annexure No.1) passed by the opposite party No.2 as well as the proceedings of Revision No.236 of 2023, Computerized Case No.C202304000000236 (Ram Karan Singh vs. Gram Panchayat & others) filed under Section 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006, pending before the opposite party No.2, in the interest of justice. (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties concerned to permit the petitioner to carry out the development works over the land in question, in the interest of justice." 3. Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the land of Gata No.1517Ka/0.1250 hectare as Abadi, Gata No.1517Kha/0.0340 as Banjar, Gata No.1517Ga/0.2570 as Talab and Gata No.1517Gha/1.7590 as Naveen Parti have been recorded in the revenue records, as the copy of Khataun has been annexed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the opposite party No.5 has filed an application for correction of map before the Collector, Sultanpur alleging therein that the map of the land of Gata No.1517 is less than the area of it as mentioned in Khatauni whereas the map of the surrounding gata numbers are greater than its area mentioned in the Khatauni. The copy of correction application of map has been annexed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. Further, on the aforesaid application a report was called, thereafter the Treasure Consolidation and Draftsman Consolidation, Sultanpur submitted their joint report dated 21.11.2022 before the Additional District Magistrate (Revenue), Sultanpur by submitting therein that the map of Gata No.1517 is greater than its area, as the report dated 21.11.2022 has been annexed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. Further, on the aforesaid application a report was called, thereafter the Treasure Consolidation and Draftsman Consolidation, Sultanpur submitted their joint report dated 21.11.2022 before the Additional District Magistrate (Revenue), Sultanpur by submitting therein that the map of Gata No.1517 is greater than its area, as the report dated 21.11.2022 has been annexed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. After the objections being filed the matter was listed before the Chief Revenue Officer i.e. the opposite party No.3 for disposal and after hearing both the parties and perusing the material available on record such authority has passed order dated 09.12.2022 thereby rejecting the objection of opposite party No.5 by further holding that there is no shorted in the map, therefore, there is no need to make correction of map on the aforesaid land as that order has been annexed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid order is an appealable order under Section 38(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (here-in-after referred to as the "Code, 2006") but instead of filing appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya the petitioner filed a revision under Section 210 of the Code, 2006. 6. Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the statutory remedy of appeal may not be circumvented. He has further submitted that under Section 38 (4) of the Code, 2006 it has been specifically indicated that the order of Appellate Authority shall be subject to the provisions of Section 210 of the Code, 2006. For convenience, Section 38 (4) of the Code, 2006 is being reproduced here-in-below:- "(4) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector or the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (3), may prefer an appeal to the Commissioner within a period of thirty days from the date of such order, and the decision of the Commissioner shall subject to the provisions of Section 210, be final." 7. Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the aforesaid revision the Revisional Authority has passed the interim order dated 04.02.2023 directing that the status-quo in respect of the property in question shall be maintained. Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the aforesaid revision the Revisional Authority has passed the interim order dated 04.02.2023 directing that the status-quo in respect of the property in question shall be maintained. He has reiterated that the Gata No.1517 is having 4 Miljumla gatas inasmuch as Gata No.1517Ka/0.125 hectare is Abadi, Gata No.1517Kha/0.034 hectare is Banjar, Gata No.1517Ga/0.257 hectare is Talab and Gata No.1517Gha/1.759 hectare is a Naveen Parti land. 8. Since the Gaon Sabha in question is to beautify the pond which is situated at Gata No.1517Ga and he will have to construct one public utility road for which the work of Kharanja has been completed about 75% but 25% work is left and on account of the impugned order dated 04.02.2023 the Gaon Sabha in question is unable to take proper steps beautifying the pond in question in terms of the government policy and also unable to complete the remaining work on the public utility land. 9. On being confronted the learned counsel for the private opposite party as to why the statutory prescription of filing appeal under Section 38(4) of the Code, 2006 has been circumvented and the revision has been filed under Section 210 of the Code, 2006, no satisfactory answer could be given. However, learned counsel for the private opposite party has stated that if the liberty is given to the private opposite party to file appeal under Section 38 (4) of the Code, 2006, the same shall be filed with expedition along with interim relief application but till the disposal of the interim relief application his peaceful possession over the land, which is situated on Abadi land, may not be disturbed. 10. Sri Tej Bali Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has also stated that as per the statutory prescription the private opposite party should first approach the Appellate Authority, thereafter, he can approach the Revisional Authority under Section 210 of the Code, 2006. 11. Be that as it may, since the private opposite party has filed revision under Section 210 of the Code, 2006 without filing appeal under Section 38 (4) of the Code, 2006, therefore, as per my considered opinion, the person aggrieved should first approach the Appellate Authority under the Code, 2006, thereafter, the aggrieved person may file revision under Section 210 of the Code, 2006. 12. 12. Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, considering the relevant prescription of the Code, 2006, more particularly Section 38 (4) of the Code, 2006 and Section 210 of the Code, 2006, the liberty is given to the private opposite party to file appeal within a period of two weeks from today before the Appellate Authority under Section 38 (4) of the Code, 2006 along with an interim relief application as well as an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act explaining the delay in approaching the Appellate Authority, within a period of two weeks from today and if such appeal is filed by the private opposite party, the Appellate Authority shall consider and dispose of such appeal, strictly in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned with expedition preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the appeal. However, the interim relief application and application for condonation of delay of the private opposite party shall be decided within a period of three weeks from the date of its filing by affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 13. However, it is needless to say that the person aggrieved from the appellate order may file revision under Section 210 of the Code, 2006. 14. Till disposal of the interim relief application of the private opposite party by the Appellate Authority, the status-quo in respect of the Abadi land which is allegedly within the possession of the private opposite party, shall be maintained. However, if no appeal is filed within the period of two weeks from today the benefit of this order shall not be available to the private opposite party. 15. Since the relevant fact has been brought into the notice of this Court that on account of the impugned interim order dated 04.02.2023 granted by the Revisional Court the work of beautification of the pond in question is not possible and the remaining construction work on the public utility land is also not possible, therefore, I hereby set aside the impugned order dated 04.02.2023 (Annexure No.1) passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya. Further, since the private opposite party has been permitted to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 38 (4) of the Code, 2006, therefore, this is also the reason to set side the order dated 04.02.2023. 16. Further, since the private opposite party has been permitted to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 38 (4) of the Code, 2006, therefore, this is also the reason to set side the order dated 04.02.2023. 16. Further, it is made clear that in the garb of the aforesaid order and findings, the Gaon Sabha concerned may not be restrained from doing the work of beautification of the pond in question which is situated at Gata No.1517Ga and to complete the remaining construction work over the public utility land where the work of constructing Kharanja road is almost complete except some part thereof. In other words, the Gaon Sabha in question is permitted to do the aforesaid work strictly in accordance with rule and the government policy inasmuch as the work of beautification of pond in question and completion of Kharanja road is necessary for the benefit of public at large. 17. Since the merits of the issue has not been considered by this Court, therefore, the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal of the private opposite party independently without there being influenced from any of the findings/ observations made here-in-above. 18. In view of the aforesaid observations/ directions, the instant writ petition is partly allowed.