Nathuram vs Additional Commissioner Judicial, Lucknow

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Upendra Singh, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents No.1 to 4, 7 and 8 and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondents No.5 and 6.

2. Learned standing counsel has provided a copy of the written instructions dated 15.10.2025 under the signatures of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow for perusal of the Court, which is taken on record.

3. Considering the limited scope of the dispute between the parties and noticing that the impugned order which is under challenge, this Court with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties is deciding the petition at the admission stage itself.

4. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order impugned dated 19.04.2024, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, whereby the revision of the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 09.11.2017 has been affirmed.

5. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, it will be appropriate to take at a brief glance at the facts giving rise to the instant petition.

6. The petitioner purchased the disputed property in question, by means of 2 WRIC No. 9977 of 2025 a registered sale-deed dated 05.04.2007, relating to 0.54 hectares of Plot No.83, situate in Village Paharpur, Pargana Bijnore, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow.

7. Apparently, at the behest of some busy body, a complaint was made which was taken note of by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned invoking the provisions of Section 157-A read with Section 157-AA of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act of 1950'). The said proceedings came to be decided against the petitioner ex-parte on

25.05.2007.

8. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner moved an application for recall, which came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. The said order was assailed in a revision and initially the revision was also dismissed, whereafter, the said order was reviewed vide order dated

12.07.2021 and thereafter the revision became alive to be contested on merits. Once again by means of the impugned order dated 19.04.2024, the revisional Court dismissed the revision.

9. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the order dated 19.04.2024 and the order dated 09.11.2017 have been assailed in the instant petition.

10. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the proceedings under Section 157-A read with Section 157-AA of the Act of 1950 came to be decided ex-parte on 25.05.2007, the petitioner being the bonafide purchaser had a right to contest the said proceedings and since the order was ex-parte, hence, the petitioner had moved an application for recall.

11. Upon the rejection of the application in default, the only issue before the respondent No.4 was relating to whether sufficient cause had been shown for restoration of the application. However, this was not appreciated, rather by means of the impugned order dated 09.11.2017, it was observed that the application had been moved only for the purposes of delaying the proceedings.

12. From a bare perusal of the order dated 09.11.2017, it would indicate that an omnibus statement has been recorded in the order without 3 WRIC No. 9977 of 2025 referring to the material which could substantiate or justify the aforesaid observation in the order.

13. In the aforesaid backdrop, when the petitioner assailed the same before the revisional Court, the issue was limited as to whether the restoration was rightly or incorrectly rejected, but the revisional Court entered into the merits of the matter and dismissed the revision, as a consequence, a right/a forum which was available to the petitioner has been taken away and the revisional Court transgressed its jurisdiction in entering into the merits which was to be considered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which has not been done. Accordingly, the order impugned is bad in law.

14. Shri Upendra Singh, learned standing counsel and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha relying upon the written instructions to submit that the petitioner has not contested the proceedings in a bonafide manner and since the land in question was in the nature of land given under Section 137 of the Act of 1950, accordingly, the findings recorded by the revisional Court cannot be said to be bad and in any case once a finding has been returned, it would be futile for hearing the matter or by remanding it to the authority concerned.

15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from a perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that as far as the order dated

09.11.2017 is concerned, the authority before embarking on any observations regarding the general conduct should have indicated as to how the said application for restoration has been moved only to keep the proceedings pending.

16. There is nothing in the said order which can substantiate the fact and moreover now it is well too settled to be disputed that an application for recall is to be tested on the basis of the averment thereon and it is the cause which is shown for non-appearance, on the date when the proceedings were dismissed for want of prosecution, is material and the previous conduct is not to be considered.

17. For this very reason, as already noticed above, there is hardly any 4 WRIC No. 9977 of 2025 material to substantiate as to how the petitioner had been procrastinating the litigation. Thus, for the said reason, the order passed by the respondent No.4 dated 09.11.2017 is not sustainable.

18. Insofar as the impugned order passed by the revisional Court dated

19.04.2024 is concerned, suffice it to state that the issue before the revisional Court was limited to the extent as to whether the restoration has rightly or incorrectly rejected, but the revisional Court has entered into the merits of the dispute, which could only have been considered by the authority of first instance after affording an opportunity of hearing and permitting the parties to lead the evidence.

19. In absence thereof, the revisional Court was not justified in entering into the merits when the merits itself was not there before the Court rather it was only the issue of restoration which should have been considered. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, even the order passed by the revisional Court cannot be sustainable.

20. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the clear opinion that the order dated 09.11.2017 and the order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the respondents No.4 and 1 respectively are quashed and set aside.

21. The proceedings shall stand restored before the respondent No.4 on payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- to the paid by the petitioner with the respondent No.4 within a period of two weeks from today.

22. Only upon the deposit of the aforesaid sum within the aforesaid period, the proceedings shall stand restored on the board of the respondent No.4. Henceforth, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent No.4 shall decide the matter afresh, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. In case, if the petitioner does not cooperate in early hearing, the Court concerned shall be well within its right to proceed in accordance with law.

23. It is also made clear that the Court has not examined the merits of the matter and it will be open for the respective parties to place and take all pleas which are available in law which needless to say shall be considered 5 WRIC No. 9977 of 2025 by the respondent No.4 on its own merits.

24. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. October 16, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Upendra Singh, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents No.1 to 4, 7 and 8 and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondents No.5 and 6.

2. Learned standing counsel has provided a copy of the written instructions dated 15.10.2025 under the signatures of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow for perusal of the Court, which is taken on record.

3. Considering the limited scope of the dispute between the parties and noticing that the impugned order which is under challenge, this Court with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties is deciding the petition at the admission stage itself.

4. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order impugned dated 19.04.2024, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, whereby the revision of the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 09.11.2017 has been affirmed.

5. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, it will be appropriate to take at a brief glance at the facts giving rise to the instant petition.

6. The petitioner purchased the disputed property in question, by means of 2 WRIC No. 9977 of 2025 a registered sale-deed dated 05.04.2007, relating to 0.54 hectares of Plot No.83, situate in Village Paharpur, Pargana Bijnore, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow.

7. Apparently, at the behest of some busy body, a complaint was made which was taken note of by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned invoking the provisions of Section 157-A read with Section 157-AA of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act of 1950'). The said proceedings came to be decided against the petitioner ex-parte on

25.05.2007.

8. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner moved an application for recall, which came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. The said order was assailed in a revision and initially the revision was also dismissed, whereafter, the said order was reviewed vide order dated

12.07.2021 and thereafter the revision became alive to be contested on merits. Once again by means of the impugned order dated 19.04.2024, the revisional Court dismissed the revision.

9. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the order dated 19.04.2024 and the order dated 09.11.2017 have been assailed in the instant petition.

10. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the proceedings under Section 157-A read with Section 157-AA of the Act of 1950 came to be decided ex-parte on 25.05.2007, the petitioner being the bonafide purchaser had a right to contest the said proceedings and since the order was ex-parte, hence, the petitioner had moved an application for recall.

11. Upon the rejection of the application in default, the only issue before the respondent No.4 was relating to whether sufficient cause had been shown for restoration of the application. However, this was not appreciated, rather by means of the impugned order dated 09.11.2017, it was observed that the application had been moved only for the purposes of delaying the proceedings.

12. From a bare perusal of the order dated 09.11.2017, it would indicate that an omnibus statement has been recorded in the order without 3 WRIC No. 9977 of 2025 referring to the material which could substantiate or justify the aforesaid observation in the order.

13. In the aforesaid backdrop, when the petitioner assailed the same before the revisional Court, the issue was limited as to whether the restoration was rightly or incorrectly rejected, but the revisional Court entered into the merits of the matter and dismissed the revision, as a consequence, a right/a forum which was available to the petitioner has been taken away and the revisional Court transgressed its jurisdiction in entering into the merits which was to be considered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which has not been done. Accordingly, the order impugned is bad in law.

14. Shri Upendra Singh, learned standing counsel and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha relying upon the written instructions to submit that the petitioner has not contested the proceedings in a bonafide manner and since the land in question was in the nature of land given under Section 137 of the Act of 1950, accordingly, the findings recorded by the revisional Court cannot be said to be bad and in any case once a finding has been returned, it would be futile for hearing the matter or by remanding it to the authority concerned.

15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from a perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that as far as the order dated

09.11.2017 is concerned, the authority before embarking on any observations regarding the general conduct should have indicated as to how the said application for restoration has been moved only to keep the proceedings pending.

16. There is nothing in the said order which can substantiate the fact and moreover now it is well too settled to be disputed that an application for recall is to be tested on the basis of the averment thereon and it is the cause which is shown for non-appearance, on the date when the proceedings were dismissed for want of prosecution, is material and the previous conduct is not to be considered.

17. For this very reason, as already noticed above, there is hardly any 4 WRIC No. 9977 of 2025 material to substantiate as to how the petitioner had been procrastinating the litigation. Thus, for the said reason, the order passed by the respondent No.4 dated 09.11.2017 is not sustainable.

18. Insofar as the impugned order passed by the revisional Court dated

19.04.2024 is concerned, suffice it to state that the issue before the revisional Court was limited to the extent as to whether the restoration has rightly or incorrectly rejected, but the revisional Court has entered into the merits of the dispute, which could only have been considered by the authority of first instance after affording an opportunity of hearing and permitting the parties to lead the evidence.

19. In absence thereof, the revisional Court was not justified in entering into the merits when the merits itself was not there before the Court rather it was only the issue of restoration which should have been considered. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, even the order passed by the revisional Court cannot be sustainable.

20. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the clear opinion that the order dated 09.11.2017 and the order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the respondents No.4 and 1 respectively are quashed and set aside.

21. The proceedings shall stand restored before the respondent No.4 on payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- to the paid by the petitioner with the respondent No.4 within a period of two weeks from today.

22. Only upon the deposit of the aforesaid sum within the aforesaid period, the proceedings shall stand restored on the board of the respondent No.4. Henceforth, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent No.4 shall decide the matter afresh, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. In case, if the petitioner does not cooperate in early hearing, the Court concerned shall be well within its right to proceed in accordance with law.

23. It is also made clear that the Court has not examined the merits of the matter and it will be open for the respective parties to place and take all pleas which are available in law which needless to say shall be considered 5 WRIC No. 9977 of 2025 by the respondent No.4 on its own merits.

24. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. October 16, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench