HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 813 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 03.05.2024 passed in Writ C No.11291 of 2024 whereby learned Single has required the petitioner therein to move a representation before the respondent-District Magistrate and required him or to the authority competent to inquire into the matter and get the land of the petitioner therein demarcated and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law and order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad passed pursuant to the order dated 03.05.2024. 2. Submissions have been made that the writ petition seeking direction to the District Magistrate was filed without impleading the appellants as party respondents and even before the District Magistrate the order was passed ex-parte without hearing the appellants and therefore, the orders passed by learned Single Judge as well as the District Magistrate deserve to be set aside. 3. Further submissions have been made that the direction given by learned Single Judge requiring an order on the representation could not have been passed as the petitioner in the writ petition was required to move an application under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 wherein, the appellants would have been heard and therefore, on that count, the orders impugned passed by learned Single Judge and consequential order passed by the District Magistrate deserve to be quashed and set aside. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Gyan Chandra, Raghvendra Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ankit Gaur, (S.C.), Arvind Kumar Maurya Shailesh and another .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and 5 others .....Respondent(s) 4. The appeal is barred by 474 days. 5. Counsel for the appellants attempted to make submissions that the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing decision on the representation made which has resulted in passing of the order by District Magistrate without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellants. 6. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record. 7. The order passed by learned Single Judge, is only for decision on the representation and passing of an order in accordance with law. The said order could not and cannot provide a license to the authority to violate the provisions of the law. 8. Once an order pursuant to the directions given by learned Single Judge has been passed by the authority and the appellants are aggrieved of the said order, questioning the validity of the order passed by learned Single Judge directing decision on the representation cannot be countenanced. The appellants have to avail remedy qua the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 18.07.2024. 9. In view of the above, no case for interference in the order passed by learned Single Judge is made out. 10. We make it clear that we have not considered the validity of the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 18.07.2024 qua which the appellants would be free to avail remedy in accordance with law. 11. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. October 7, 2025 Sandeep/Jyotsana SPLAD No. 813 of 2025 2 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad