State v. Ramesh and others, whereby the land purchased by the

1. Heard Sri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

2. The captioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging therein, the orders dated 16.12.2023, 09.11.2023 and 09.08.2021 contained in annexure nos. 1,2 and 3, respectively to the writ petition.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he purchased the land of Gata No.419, measuring 0.089 hectare, Gata No.420/2 measuring

0.038 hectare and Gata No.59 measuring 0.215 hectare by way of a registered sale deed on 29.08.1997. The Deputy Collector (Revenue), Lucknow in the proceedings, initiated under Sections 166/167 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, passed an order on 04.06.2008 in Case No.19/68/105/182/07-08, State vs. Ramesh and others, whereby the land purchased by the petitioner had been vested in the State Government. Since as per version of the petitioner, the order dated 04.06.2008 was an ex-parte order, therefore, he filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 04.06.2008 and restoration of the case for hearing it afresh on merits.

4. The application, filed by the petitioner, had been dismissed for non- prosecution vide order dated 09.08.2021. The petitioner again filed an application for recall of order dated 09.08.2021 and that application had been 2 WRIC No. 8332 of 2025 dismissed vide order dated 09.11.2023.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner challenged the order dated

09.08.2021 and the order dated 09.11.2023 by filing a Revision No.3507 of 2023 before the Additional Commissioner (Administration) and that revision had also been dismissed.

6. Sri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has argued that the application filed by petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure had been rejected for non-prosecution vide order dated 09.08.2021 on the ground that inspite of few opportunities having been granted, no one appeared from the side of petitioner, though the period in which the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Lucknow had passed order was a peak time of COVID-19 pandemic and therefore, it was not possible for the petitioner or his counsel to appear in the matter. He further submits that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking Suo-Moto cognizance of the situation arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic had passed an order in Suo-Moto Writ Petition No.3 of 2020 and had issued direction that a period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall be excluded for the purposes of counting of limitation in instituting the legal proceedings.

7. It has been argued that the revisional court was under obligation to consider the reason for non-appearance of the petitioner or his counsel on

09.08.2021 before the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Lucknow as the reason for non-appearance is a genuine reason, as not only the petitioner but the entire world was under lock-down due to COVID-19 pandemic and therefore, it was not possible for anybody on behalf of the petitioner to appear in the proceedings.

8. Sri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that it is well settled proposition of law that opportunity of hearing to the party of a case should not be denied for technical reasons and in this matter, non-appearance of the petitioner's counsel or the petitioner was for genuine reason i.e. the COVID-19 pandemic, which was on its peak.

9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has opposed this writ 3 WRIC No. 8332 of 2025 petition but he could not deny the fact that on 09.08.2021, when the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution, the COVID-19 pandemic was on its peak and the entire world was facing lock-down.

10. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and I find that petitioner's application filed for setting aside ex- parte order dated 04.06.2008 had been rejected by the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Lucknow vide order dated 09.08.2021 for want of prosecution, as neither the petitioner nor his counsel could appear on the said date before the court concerned. I further find that the COVID-19 pandemic started in the month of March, 2020 and continued till the year 2022 and it was very difficult for the citizens of the country to move on roads during that period, as at different times entire country was put under lock-down.

11. Once for genuine reasons the petitioner and his counsel could not appear before the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Lucknow on 09.08.2021, then on the application having been filed for recall of the order dated

09.08.2021, it was obligatory on the authority concerned to take a lenient view and to recall the order dated 09.08.2021 and to proceed to hear the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte order dated 04.0.2008 on its own merit.

12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 16.12.2023 passed in Revision No. 3507 of 2023 (Computerized Case No.C202310000003507), the order dated 09.11.2023 passed Case No.RST/3135/2022 (Computerized Case No.D202210460003135) are hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded to the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Lucknow to decide the petitioner's application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Case No.5689 of 2018 (Computerized Case No.D201810460005689) for recall of the order dated 09.08.2021, afresh on its own merit, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

13. Needless to say that this Court has not examined the case on merits 4 WRIC No. 8332 of 2025 and therefore, the competent authority is at liberty to decide the application filed by the petitioner on its own merit and if the application is allowed and the order is recalled, then to proceed to decide the entire matter on merits. September 16, 2025 Renu/- (Manjive Shukla,J.) RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

2. The captioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging therein, the orders dated 16.12.2023, 09.11.2023 and 09.08.2021 contained in annexure nos. 1,2 and 3, respectively to the writ petition.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he purchased the land of Gata No.419, measuring 0.089 hectare, Gata No.420/2 measuring

0.038 hectare and Gata No.59 measuring 0.215 hectare by way of a registered sale deed on 29.08.1997. The Deputy Collector (Revenue), Lucknow in the proceedings, initiated under Sections 166/167 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, passed an order on 04.06.2008 in Case No.19/68/105/182/07-08, State vs. Ramesh and others, whereby the land purchased by the petitioner had been vested in the State Government. Since as per version of the petitioner, the order dated 04.06.2008 was an ex-parte order, therefore, he filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 04.06.2008 and restoration of the case for hearing it afresh on merits.

4. The application, filed by the petitioner, had been dismissed for non- prosecution vide order dated 09.08.2021. The petitioner again filed an application for recall of order dated 09.08.2021 and that application had been 2 WRIC No. 8332 of 2025 dismissed vide order dated 09.11.2023.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner challenged the order dated

09.08.2021 and the order dated 09.11.2023 by filing a Revision No.3507 of 2023 before the Additional Commissioner (Administration) and that revision had also been dismissed.

6. Sri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has argued that the application filed by petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure had been rejected for non-prosecution vide order dated 09.08.2021 on the ground that inspite of few opportunities having been granted, no one appeared from the side of petitioner, though the period in which the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Lucknow had passed order was a peak time of COVID-19 pandemic and therefore, it was not possible for the petitioner or his counsel to appear in the matter. He further submits that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking Suo-Moto cognizance of the situation arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic had passed an order in Suo-Moto Writ Petition No.3 of 2020 and had issued direction that a period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall be excluded for the purposes of counting of limitation in instituting the legal proceedings.

7. It has been argued that the revisional court was under obligation to consider the reason for non-appearance of the petitioner or his counsel on

09.08.2021 before the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Lucknow as the reason for non-appearance is a genuine reason, as not only the petitioner but the entire world was under lock-down due to COVID-19 pandemic and therefore, it was not possible for anybody on behalf of the petitioner to appear in the proceedings.

8. Sri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that it is well settled proposition of law that opportunity of hearing to the party of a case should not be denied for technical reasons and in this matter, non-appearance of the petitioner's counsel or the petitioner was for genuine reason i.e. the COVID-19 pandemic, which was on its peak.

9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has opposed this writ 3 WRIC No. 8332 of 2025 petition but he could not deny the fact that on 09.08.2021, when the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution, the COVID-19 pandemic was on its peak and the entire world was facing lock-down.

10. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and I find that petitioner's application filed for setting aside ex- parte order dated 04.06.2008 had been rejected by the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Lucknow vide order dated 09.08.2021 for want of prosecution, as neither the petitioner nor his counsel could appear on the said date before the court concerned. I further find that the COVID-19 pandemic started in the month of March, 2020 and continued till the year 2022 and it was very difficult for the citizens of the country to move on roads during that period, as at different times entire country was put under lock-down.

11. Once for genuine reasons the petitioner and his counsel could not appear before the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Lucknow on 09.08.2021, then on the application having been filed for recall of the order dated

09.08.2021, it was obligatory on the authority concerned to take a lenient view and to recall the order dated 09.08.2021 and to proceed to hear the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte order dated 04.0.2008 on its own merit.

12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 16.12.2023 passed in Revision No. 3507 of 2023 (Computerized Case No.C202310000003507), the order dated 09.11.2023 passed Case No.RST/3135/2022 (Computerized Case No.D202210460003135) are hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded to the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Lucknow to decide the petitioner's application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Case No.5689 of 2018 (Computerized Case No.D201810460005689) for recall of the order dated 09.08.2021, afresh on its own merit, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

13. Needless to say that this Court has not examined the case on merits 4 WRIC No. 8332 of 2025 and therefore, the competent authority is at liberty to decide the application filed by the petitioner on its own merit and if the application is allowed and the order is recalled, then to proceed to decide the entire matter on merits. September 16, 2025 Renu/- (Manjive Shukla,J.) RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench