Akhilesh Kumar Mishra and Others vs Sub. District Magistrate, Mankapur, Gonda and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Akhilesh Kumar Mishra and Others vs Sub. District Magistrate, Mankapur, Gonda and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mankapur, District Gonda to decide the recall application dated 2.9.2020 in Case No. 2148 of 2016 within one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order, with adjournments taken by the petitioner's counsel excluded from the period.

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction should issue to opposite party no. 1 (Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mankapur, District Gonda) to decide the recall application filed on 02.09.2020 in Case No. 2148/2016 (Computerized No. 20160830072148) under section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code expeditiously. +1 more

Court's answer

One more opportunity was granted to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mankapur, District Gonda to decide the recall application dated 2.9.2020 in Case No. 2148 of 2016, filed by respondents no. 3 and 4, within one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Ratio / Principle

From perusal of the order sheet of Case No. 2148 of 2016, the case could not be disposed of because, instead of hearing it, the Presiding Officer fixed only routine dates.

Key takeaways

As per the direction in Daya Shankar's case the recall application should have been decided within one month, failing which reasons must be recorded; the order sheet records no reason for not deciding the petitioner's recall application.ratio¶16
Prima facie, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mankapur, District Gonda committed contempt by not complying with the direction of this Court in Daya Shankar's case.ratio¶17
Adjournments taken by the counsel for the petitioner will not be included in the one-month period allowed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Matters Under Article 227 No. 6974 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.; decided December 2, 2025) — disposed of. Petitioners sought a direction to opposite party no. 1, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mankapur, District Gonda, to decide a recall application filed on 02.09.2020 in Case No. 2148/2016 (Computerized No. 20160830072148) under section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, directed to recalling an order dated 27.8.2019, pending since 2020. Perusal of the order sheet showed only routine dates were fixed without hearing, and no reason was recorded for the delay, contrary to this Court's earlier direction in Daya Shankar Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023 (6) A.D.J. 181, that recall applications be decided within one month or reasons recorded. The Court observed prima facie contempt by the SDM for non-compliance, granted one more opportunity to decide the recall application within one month from receipt of a certified copy of the order, and excluded adjournments taken by the petitioner's counsel from that period.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6974 of 2025

Akhilesh Kumar Mishra And Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Sub. District Magistrate, Ma Others	nkapur, Gonda And .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Avadhesh Kumar Singh, Shashi Dhar Pathak, Vinay Prakash Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta

Court No. - 22

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

Heard Shri Avadhesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

The present writ petition has been filed with the following main relief:-

" (i) to issue direction to the opposite party no.1 to decide the recall application filed on 02.09.2020 in Case No. 2148/2016 Computerized No. 20160830072148, under section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, expeditiously."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed recall application to recall the order dated 27.8.2019 passed under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, which is pending since 2020 and the same has not been decided, therefore a direction be issued to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mankapur, District Gonda to decide the same within the time bound manner.

After hearing the submission from perusal of the order sheet of Case No. 2148 of 2016, it is clear that the case could not be disposed of for the reason that instead hearing the same, routine date has been fixed by the Presiding Officer. Though, as per the direction made in the case of Daya Shankar Vs. State of U.P. and others 2023 (6) A.D.J. 181, the recall application should have been decided within a period of one month, if the same, is not decided then the reason must be recorded but in the present

A227 No. 6974 of 2025

2

case the order sheet does not show any reason has been recorded for not deciding the recall application of the petitioner.

Therefore, prima facie Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mankapur, District Gonda has committed contempt by not complying the direction of this Court in Daya Shankar's case. However, this Court grants one more opportunity to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mankpur, District Gonda to decide the recall application dated 2.9.2020 in Case No. 2148 of 2016, filed by respondents no. 3 and 4, within a period of one month, from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order.

It is made clear that the adjournment taken by the counsel for the present petitioner, will not be included in the aforesaid period.

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of.

(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)

December 2, 2025 Muk

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench