LUCKNOW vs Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division,

Standing Counsel. Shri Arpit Gupta, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the private-respondent No.3 and also filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being decided at the admission stage itself as the issue involved in the instant petition revolves around the fact as to whether the proceedings initiated against a dead person, if challenged by the legal heirs of the deceased could be dismissed for having been filed with delay without considering the sufficiency of cause.

3. The record would indicate that the private-respondent No.3 had initiated proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (for short, 'the Code 2006') seeking demarcation of his Plot No.104, measuring 1.010 hectares situate in Gram Sarthara, Pargana Dewa, Tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki.

4. The proceedings came to be initiated on 03.10.2023 and the father/the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, namely, Chhatrapati, who was the contiguous tenure holder of Plot No.103 had died on

03.05.2021. 2 WRIC No. 10090 of 2025

5. The record would further indicate that the proceedings initiated under Section 24 of the Code 2006, wherein the private-respondent No.3 was the petitioner, he had impleaded 17 respondents but the father of the petitioner, namely, Chhatrapati was not impleaded at all. It is also stated that subsequently an application for impleadment was moved and Shri Chhatrapati was also included and impleaded as a party, but the fact remains that even on the date of impleadment, Chhatrapati had already expired.

6. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the proceedings under Section 24 of the Code 2006 came to be decided by means of the order dated

05.12.2023.

7. It is at a later stage that the present petitioners after becoming aware of the demarcation order, moved an application for recall on 01.05.2024, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure No.8 to state that neither the present petitioners being the successors of Chhatrapati were ever served with a notice nor their father could have been served as he had already expired in the year 2021, hence, the order was ex-parte and for the aforesaid reason, the delay, if any, in moving the application for recall ought to have been condoned and after affording an opportunity of hearing, the matter could be decided on merits.

8. The said application for recall came to be rejected by means of the order dated 23.07.2024 which was further assailed by the petitioners by filing an appeal which also met the same fate vide order dated 11.08.2025 and it is in the aforesaid backdrop, the instant petition has been preferred.

9. Learned counsel for the private-respondent No.8 had made his submissions that these are interlocutory proceedings and in case if the petitioners were aggrieved, they could file their own separate proceedings for demarcation in respect of Plot No.103. In such circumstances, it was urged that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the core issue regarding Section 24 and the Rules framed thereunder would indicate that whenever a petition is entertained in terms of Section 24 of the Code 2006, all the contiguous tenure holder are required to be noticed so that any order 3 WRIC No. 10090 of 2025 passed may not impact their rights, ex-parte and the lis be decided after hearing all the affected parties.

11. It could not be disputed that on the date of institution of petition under Section 24 of the Code 2006 dated 03.10.2023, Chhatrapati was not impleaded. It could also not be disputed that Chhatrapati had already died on 03.05.2021. Thus, the subsequent impleadment of Chhatrapati does not come to the aid of the private-respondent or the authority, who should have verified whether the process server could have not known that Chhatrapati had expired in 2021. Thus, the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate concerned on 05.12.2023 was ex-parte and it also could not be disputed that Chhatrapati was a contiguous plot holder.

12. An application for recall which was moved by the petitioners clearly indicated this fact and it also stated that the delay of 5 months was occasioned for the reason that neither the father of the present petitioners was impleaded and moreover he was died. The notice was never served and the delay, if any, on account of the aforesaid cause should have been condoned, but this did not find favour with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who rejected the application on the ground of limitation, the appellate authority also took the same view.

13. This Court finds that apparently the manner in which the application for recall which also prayed for condonation of delay has been treated and dealt with by the authorities is contrary to the settled principles regarding condonation of delay. There is nothing on record to indicate that there were any malafides or deliberate efforts for abstaining from the proceedings.

14. Since, it was an admitted fact that Chhatrapati had expired and there was no material to suggest that the present petitioners had knowledge of the proceedings, the application seeking condonation of delay and recall could not have been dismissed. The reasoning adopted by the appellate Court also suffered from the same vice, accordingly, the same are quashed and set aside. The matter shall stand restored on the board of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned, where the parties shall appear on

31.10.2025, on which date, it will be open for the petitioners to file their 4 WRIC No. 10090 of 2025 objection and thereafter the application for demarcation under Section 24 of the Code 2006 shall be reconsidered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned, after affording full opportunity to the present petitioners, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment and an endeavour to decide the said proceedings as expeditiously as possible.

15. It is further observed that the Court has set aside the impugned orders on account of non-consideration of sufficiency of cause and has not entered into the merits of the controversy involved under Section 24 of the Code 2006.

16. For the aforesaid, the petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. October 17, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Standing Counsel. Shri Arpit Gupta, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the private-respondent No.3 and also filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being decided at the admission stage itself as the issue involved in the instant petition revolves around the fact as to whether the proceedings initiated against a dead person, if challenged by the legal heirs of the deceased could be dismissed for having been filed with delay without considering the sufficiency of cause.

3. The record would indicate that the private-respondent No.3 had initiated proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (for short, 'the Code 2006') seeking demarcation of his Plot No.104, measuring 1.010 hectares situate in Gram Sarthara, Pargana Dewa, Tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki.

4. The proceedings came to be initiated on 03.10.2023 and the father/the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, namely, Chhatrapati, who was the contiguous tenure holder of Plot No.103 had died on

03.05.2021. 2 WRIC No. 10090 of 2025

5. The record would further indicate that the proceedings initiated under Section 24 of the Code 2006, wherein the private-respondent No.3 was the petitioner, he had impleaded 17 respondents but the father of the petitioner, namely, Chhatrapati was not impleaded at all. It is also stated that subsequently an application for impleadment was moved and Shri Chhatrapati was also included and impleaded as a party, but the fact remains that even on the date of impleadment, Chhatrapati had already expired.

6. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the proceedings under Section 24 of the Code 2006 came to be decided by means of the order dated

05.12.2023.

7. It is at a later stage that the present petitioners after becoming aware of the demarcation order, moved an application for recall on 01.05.2024, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure No.8 to state that neither the present petitioners being the successors of Chhatrapati were ever served with a notice nor their father could have been served as he had already expired in the year 2021, hence, the order was ex-parte and for the aforesaid reason, the delay, if any, in moving the application for recall ought to have been condoned and after affording an opportunity of hearing, the matter could be decided on merits.

8. The said application for recall came to be rejected by means of the order dated 23.07.2024 which was further assailed by the petitioners by filing an appeal which also met the same fate vide order dated 11.08.2025 and it is in the aforesaid backdrop, the instant petition has been preferred.

9. Learned counsel for the private-respondent No.8 had made his submissions that these are interlocutory proceedings and in case if the petitioners were aggrieved, they could file their own separate proceedings for demarcation in respect of Plot No.103. In such circumstances, it was urged that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the core issue regarding Section 24 and the Rules framed thereunder would indicate that whenever a petition is entertained in terms of Section 24 of the Code 2006, all the contiguous tenure holder are required to be noticed so that any order 3 WRIC No. 10090 of 2025 passed may not impact their rights, ex-parte and the lis be decided after hearing all the affected parties.

11. It could not be disputed that on the date of institution of petition under Section 24 of the Code 2006 dated 03.10.2023, Chhatrapati was not impleaded. It could also not be disputed that Chhatrapati had already died on 03.05.2021. Thus, the subsequent impleadment of Chhatrapati does not come to the aid of the private-respondent or the authority, who should have verified whether the process server could have not known that Chhatrapati had expired in 2021. Thus, the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate concerned on 05.12.2023 was ex-parte and it also could not be disputed that Chhatrapati was a contiguous plot holder.

12. An application for recall which was moved by the petitioners clearly indicated this fact and it also stated that the delay of 5 months was occasioned for the reason that neither the father of the present petitioners was impleaded and moreover he was died. The notice was never served and the delay, if any, on account of the aforesaid cause should have been condoned, but this did not find favour with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who rejected the application on the ground of limitation, the appellate authority also took the same view.

13. This Court finds that apparently the manner in which the application for recall which also prayed for condonation of delay has been treated and dealt with by the authorities is contrary to the settled principles regarding condonation of delay. There is nothing on record to indicate that there were any malafides or deliberate efforts for abstaining from the proceedings.

14. Since, it was an admitted fact that Chhatrapati had expired and there was no material to suggest that the present petitioners had knowledge of the proceedings, the application seeking condonation of delay and recall could not have been dismissed. The reasoning adopted by the appellate Court also suffered from the same vice, accordingly, the same are quashed and set aside. The matter shall stand restored on the board of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned, where the parties shall appear on

31.10.2025, on which date, it will be open for the petitioners to file their 4 WRIC No. 10090 of 2025 objection and thereafter the application for demarcation under Section 24 of the Code 2006 shall be reconsidered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned, after affording full opportunity to the present petitioners, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment and an endeavour to decide the said proceedings as expeditiously as possible.

15. It is further observed that the Court has set aside the impugned orders on account of non-consideration of sufficiency of cause and has not entered into the merits of the controversy involved under Section 24 of the Code 2006.

16. For the aforesaid, the petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. October 17, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench