Shyam Sunder vs Addl. Commissioner -Ii, Devi Patan Mandal,

1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent No. 2 while Sri Arvind Pratap Singh, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 5 to 8.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that present dispute pertains to the partition of property situated at Gata Nos. 2357, 2361, 2362, 2363, 2365, 2367 & 2369 situated at Village Nawabganj, City, Pargana Nawabganj, Tehsil - Tarabganj, District Gonda of which the petitioner is the recorded tenure holder of 2/3rd of the share of the aforesaid land while respondent Nos. 3 to 7 have 1/3rd share. Proceedings were initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil - Tarabganj, District Gonda and a preliminary decree was drawn up on 11.01.2022.

3. After the preparation of the preliminary degree, the matter was sent to the Tehsildar in terms of Rule 109 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules for the preparation of the kurra and for demarcation of the land among all the shareholders in terms of the preliminary decree. The Tehsildar submitted his report on 10/07/2022, and no objections were filed against the preliminary decree. The said report was confirmed by judgment and order dated 15/09/2022.

4. The respondents had filed an application for recall on 12/12/2022, after a lapse of nearly three months, stating that no notices were issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate while accepting the report of the Tehsildar and passing the final decree. As the application preferred by the petitioner was time-barred, the same was accompanied by an application under Section 5 2 WRIC No. 8414 of 2025 of the Limitation Act, wherein paragraph no. 7 clearly stated that no notices were issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at the stage of confirmation of the kurra reports and passing of the final decree.

5. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate was of the view that the petitioner had been unable to explain the delay to the satisfaction of the court and consequently rejected his application for recall by means of order dated 08/11/2024.

6. At this stage, it has further been informed that, against the order dated 15/09/2022, the petitioner had also filed a appeal before the Additional Commissioner, but when it was informed that the petitioner had simultaneously preferred an application for recall, the appeal was dismissed on 04/04/2024 for the petitioner to avail the remedy or recall already exercised by him. The order of rejection of his application for recall dated 08/11/2024 was assailed by the petitioner in revision before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), and the same has been rejected by means of order dated 22.07.2025, which has been assailed in the present petition.

7. The petitioner has reiterated the arguments raised by him before the authority below and submitted that the respondents had deliberately filed the application for recall with the delay and they have also committed forgery in the preparation of the documents, and accordingly, no illegality has been committed by the trial court while rejecting the application for recall on the ground of limitation.

8. The revisional court, while allowing the revision, has remanded the matter back for consideration afresh by the trial court. The revisional court, after perusing the record of the trial court, was of the view that, in fact, notices had not been issued to the private respondents before the final decree was passed and that no opportunity was given to them to file their objections.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition and supported the impugned order.

10. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the private respondents were given an opportunity of hearing before the final decree was passed on 15/09/2022.

11. This court finds that this aspect of the matter has been examined by 3 WRIC No. 8414 of 2025 the appellate court while summoning the lower court records. According to the appellate order, he found that the notices were never issued to the private respondents after the preparation of the preliminary decree, and therefore, as mandated under Rule 109(6) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, it was mandatory that the trial court should have sought the objections to the kurra report submitted by the Tehsildar, and only thereafter they could have proceeded to pass the final decree.. In the aforesaid circumstances and confirming the fact that the private respondents were never given any opportunity of hearing, he had set aside the order dated 15/09/2022 and remanded the matter to the trial court for proceeding afresh from that stage onwards. The petitioner also could not dispute the aforesaid facts, and in case notices were not issued or the respondent was not called upon to participate in the trial proceedings then the said order is certainly illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, this court does not find any ground for interference in the impugned appellate order dated 22.07.2025

12. However, it is provided that the trial court / Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall proceed in the matter from the stage of submission of the kurra. The petitioner shall file objections, if any, against the kurra report within a period of three weeks from today. The petitioner shall also file his objections to the reply to the objections filed by the respondents within a maximum period of 10 days thereafter and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall make all endeavour to conclude the proceedings within a maximum period of six weeks from the date pleadings are exchanged between the parties by reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

13. Subject to the aforesaid observations / directions, the writ petition stands dismissed. September 12, 2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent No. 2 while Sri Arvind Pratap Singh, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 5 to 8.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that present dispute pertains to the partition of property situated at Gata Nos. 2357, 2361, 2362, 2363, 2365, 2367 & 2369 situated at Village Nawabganj, City, Pargana Nawabganj, Tehsil - Tarabganj, District Gonda of which the petitioner is the recorded tenure holder of 2/3rd of the share of the aforesaid land while respondent Nos. 3 to 7 have 1/3rd share. Proceedings were initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil - Tarabganj, District Gonda and a preliminary decree was drawn up on 11.01.2022.

3. After the preparation of the preliminary degree, the matter was sent to the Tehsildar in terms of Rule 109 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules for the preparation of the kurra and for demarcation of the land among all the shareholders in terms of the preliminary decree. The Tehsildar submitted his report on 10/07/2022, and no objections were filed against the preliminary decree. The said report was confirmed by judgment and order dated 15/09/2022.

4. The respondents had filed an application for recall on 12/12/2022, after a lapse of nearly three months, stating that no notices were issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate while accepting the report of the Tehsildar and passing the final decree. As the application preferred by the petitioner was time-barred, the same was accompanied by an application under Section 5 2 WRIC No. 8414 of 2025 of the Limitation Act, wherein paragraph no. 7 clearly stated that no notices were issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at the stage of confirmation of the kurra reports and passing of the final decree.

5. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate was of the view that the petitioner had been unable to explain the delay to the satisfaction of the court and consequently rejected his application for recall by means of order dated 08/11/2024.

6. At this stage, it has further been informed that, against the order dated 15/09/2022, the petitioner had also filed a appeal before the Additional Commissioner, but when it was informed that the petitioner had simultaneously preferred an application for recall, the appeal was dismissed on 04/04/2024 for the petitioner to avail the remedy or recall already exercised by him. The order of rejection of his application for recall dated 08/11/2024 was assailed by the petitioner in revision before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), and the same has been rejected by means of order dated 22.07.2025, which has been assailed in the present petition.

7. The petitioner has reiterated the arguments raised by him before the authority below and submitted that the respondents had deliberately filed the application for recall with the delay and they have also committed forgery in the preparation of the documents, and accordingly, no illegality has been committed by the trial court while rejecting the application for recall on the ground of limitation.

8. The revisional court, while allowing the revision, has remanded the matter back for consideration afresh by the trial court. The revisional court, after perusing the record of the trial court, was of the view that, in fact, notices had not been issued to the private respondents before the final decree was passed and that no opportunity was given to them to file their objections.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition and supported the impugned order.

10. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the private respondents were given an opportunity of hearing before the final decree was passed on 15/09/2022.

11. This court finds that this aspect of the matter has been examined by 3 WRIC No. 8414 of 2025 the appellate court while summoning the lower court records. According to the appellate order, he found that the notices were never issued to the private respondents after the preparation of the preliminary decree, and therefore, as mandated under Rule 109(6) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, it was mandatory that the trial court should have sought the objections to the kurra report submitted by the Tehsildar, and only thereafter they could have proceeded to pass the final decree.. In the aforesaid circumstances and confirming the fact that the private respondents were never given any opportunity of hearing, he had set aside the order dated 15/09/2022 and remanded the matter to the trial court for proceeding afresh from that stage onwards. The petitioner also could not dispute the aforesaid facts, and in case notices were not issued or the respondent was not called upon to participate in the trial proceedings then the said order is certainly illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, this court does not find any ground for interference in the impugned appellate order dated 22.07.2025

12. However, it is provided that the trial court / Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall proceed in the matter from the stage of submission of the kurra. The petitioner shall file objections, if any, against the kurra report within a period of three weeks from today. The petitioner shall also file his objections to the reply to the objections filed by the respondents within a maximum period of 10 days thereafter and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall make all endeavour to conclude the proceedings within a maximum period of six weeks from the date pleadings are exchanged between the parties by reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

13. Subject to the aforesaid observations / directions, the writ petition stands dismissed. September 12, 2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench