JUDGMENT : Saurabh Lavania, J. (1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and perused the records. (2) In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with. (3) The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "I. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 11.11.2024, passed by the opp. party no. 2 and 3.7.2023 and 24.2.2011 passed by the opp. party no.3 as contained in annexure no. 1,2 and 3 to this writ petition in the interest of justice." (4) Vide impugned order dated 24.02.2011, the opposite party no.3/Sub Divisional Officer, Gola Gokaran Nath, Tehsil-Gola, District Kheri, in exercise of power 33/39 of U.P. Revenue Act, 1901 (in short 'Act of 1901'), in Case No.10 (State Versus Rajkaran), directed the revenue official to correct the mistake in the revenue records with regard to Gata No. 531 area 0.235 Hect., Group-IV situated at Village Sisokan, Pargana-Magdapur, Tehsil-Gola, District-Kheri. (5) On coming to know about the order dated 24.02.2011 referred above, an application seeking recall of order dated 24.02.2011 was preferred which was registered as Case No.RST/00029/2010, computerized case no.T201010430300029 (State Versus Rajkaran). This application was rejected by the opposite party no.3, vide impugned order dated 03.07.2023. Thereafter, petitioner preferred a revision under Section 219 of the Act of 1901 registered as Revision/Case No. 2094/2023, Computerized Case No. C202310000002094 (Rajkaran and Others Versus SDM, Golagokaran, Kheri and Others). The revisional court i.e. opposite party no.3, upon due consideration of the facts of the case, dismissed the revision vide impugned order dated 11.11.2024, which reads as under:- (6) Before proceeding, it would be apt to indicate that with regard to Gata Nos. 170, 171, 172, 37, 474, 468 and 153, a suit under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 ( in short 'Code of 2006') for declaration of rights was filed by the petitioner, registered as Suit/Case No. 10763 of 2022, computerized case no. T202210430310763/2022 (Rajkaran Singh Versus Geeta Devi and Others). This suit instituted by the petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 04.11.2024. A copy of said order dated 04.11.2024, placed before this Court by Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel, is taken on record. T202210430310763/2022 (Rajkaran Singh Versus Geeta Devi and Others). This suit instituted by the petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 04.11.2024. A copy of said order dated 04.11.2024, placed before this Court by Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel, is taken on record. The order dated 04.11.2024 passed in the suit instituted under the Code of 2006, is extracted hereinunder:- (7) Thus, the subject matter of the present petition relates to correction of revenue records. (8) It is to be noted that the proceedings related to correction of revenue records are summary in nature and they do not decide any right or title between the parties. Furthermore, the order passed in proceedings of such nature are always subject to declaration of rights which may be sought by the parties concerned by instituting a regular suit. (9) Section 40A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, (now repealed) as also Section 39 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is applicable w.e.f. 11.02.2016, make it clear that no order passed in the proceedings related to correction of revenue records shall debar any person from establishing his rights in the land by means of a regular suit. (10) Considering the aforesaid as also that the issue involved in this petition, which requires proper adjudication, I am not inclined to interfere in this petition, which is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy of regular suit for his rights over the property in dispute. 11) It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the case, as such, it is expected that the concerned authority/court, would pass the order after due consideration of the facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties as also the law on the issue involved. 12) With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.