Meena Devi and Another Vs Apar Commissioner Administrative Iind, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

Heard Shri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri Arun Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶11

In view of the proposed order to be passed, notice to opposite party no. 3 is dispensed with.

¶12

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Administrative-II, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, in Revision No. 237 of 2025, under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as order dated 08.11.2024 passed by learned Naib Tehsildar, Gonda in Restoration Case No. 10902 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. T20240830041092) in the proceedings under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶13

The contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that order dated 08.11.2024 passed by learned Naib Tehsildar, Gonda is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same has been passed without taking into consideration the delay in filing the restoration application. Learned counsel further submits that the order sought to be recalled in Restoration Case No. 10902 of 2024 was passed on 09.08.2024, whereas the restoration application was filed on 12.09.2024. It is contended that the court below proceeded to entertain the restoration case and passed an interim order without first considering the legal question of delay.

¶14

In support of his submission, learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Noharlal Verma Vs. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. reported in (2008) 14 SCC 445 .

¶15

WRIC No. 9566 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

Second leg of submission as advanced by learned counsel for petitioners is that Clause 491 of the U.P. Revenue Court provides that when an appeal, revision or application for review is filed after the expiry of the period of limitation specified, no stay or interim order can be granted before condoning the delay.

¶18

Clause 491 of the U.P. Revenue Court provides as follows:-

¶19

"491. No stay or interim order before condonation of delay. Where an appeal, revision or application for review is presented after the expiry of the period of limitation specified there for accompanied by an application supported by affidavit for the condonation of the delay, the court shall neither stay the effect and operation of the judgment, decree or order in question nor grant any other interim relief unless the delay is condoned."

¶20

The contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that in view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is not sustainable in law, having been passed dehor of Rules.

¶21

Shri Arun Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State has raised an objection regarding the entertainability of present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of filing a detailed objection before the competent court by pointing out the aforesaid infirmity or illegality as alleged in the present petition.

¶22

This Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending, therefore the same is being disposed of at the admission stage itself considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

¶23

Therefore, without entering into merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioners to file a detailed objection/application before the Naib Tehsildar within a period of ten days from today inter-alia raising all grounds and pleas as are available to them and the Naib Tehsildar (respondent no. 2) shall consider and decide the same by a reasoned order within four weeks from the date of filing of the said objection/application strictly in accordance with law.

¶24

October 6, 2025

¶25

Virendra

¶26

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Meena Devi and Another v. Apar Commissioner Administrative Iind, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Devi and Another v. Apar Commissioner Administrative Iind, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Savfab Developers Private Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory Ashish Sharma vs Ghanshyam Singh

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Thru. Its Regional Manager Kanpur vs Rakesh and 4 Others

U.P. State Road Tranport Corporation Thru. Regional Manager Distt. Kanpur vs Rakesh and 4 Others

Ihb Ltd. Ahmedabad,Gujarat Thru. Manager(Project) Navin Yadav Vs Naib Tahsildar, Manikpur, Tehsil Kunda, Pratpgarh and 4 Others

Smt. Vidhyawati Devi and 6 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Smt. Vidhyawati Devi and 6 Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others