Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60913 Court No. - 85 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38139 of 2024 Petitioner :- Veer Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajnish Kumar Pandey,Santosh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. 2. The petitioners, on the basis of an Asami patta, filed a suit under Section 229-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act'). The suit was dismissed on 30.06.2008 on merits. A first appeal was filed against the decree of dismissal of suit before the Commissioner. It appears that in the meantime, various lease granted in the village were cancelled by the Board of Revenue. Such order gave rise to filing of bunch of writ petitions, which were allowed by this Court by a detailed order dated 23.03.2009 and the order of Board of Revenue was set aside. 3. The said order is said to have been filed by the petitioners in the pending first appeal. However, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 25.11.2009. A recall application was filed after a period of two years, which was dismissed on 09.07.2012 as barred by limitation and recording observation that no cogent explanation for delay of two years has been given. 4. Seeking recall of order dated 09.07.2012, another recall application was filed after a period of six years on 27.12.2018, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 06.06.2022. 5. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 06.06.2022, 09.07.2012, 25.11.2009 and 30.06.2008. 6. The instant writ petition is reported to be beyond time by 800 days. Latches have been explained in paragraph No. 21 of the writ petition stating that when the petitioners managed expenditure for filing writ petition, they obtained certified copy and then approached the learned counsel in August, 2024 and then filed writ petition in November, 2024. 7. Series of events giving rise to the instant writ petition shows that irrespective of the fact that at one point of time, writ court had set aside the order of Board of Revenue, which might have impact on the nature of patta or its cancellation, the issue involved in the present writ petition is as to whether rejection of the recall application and then another restoration application for want of prosecution and then filing of this belated petition is justified. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners being poor persons were not aware of the legal procedure and, therefore, delay may be ignored and they may be given opportunity to re-address the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, who had initially dismissed the suit under Section 229-B of the Act. 9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submit that conduct of the petitioners dis-entitles them to claim any relief and, even otherwise, writ petition against the order of dismissal of restoration application for want of prosecution is not maintainable. 10. The Court has considered the rival submissions and has perused the entire record and is of the view that when the first appeal was dismissed in 2009, no cogent explanation was offered for filing restoration application after two years. Even if, the Court ignores the delay of two years in filing the restoration application, the petitioners did not pursue the same diligently and, consequently, the same was dismissed on 09.07.2012. Then again the petitioners kept mum for a period of six years and filed restoration application in 2018, which was also dismissed for want of prosecution on 06.06.2022. Even thereafter, the petitioners neither filed a recall application nor even the writ petition or the revision and directly have filed the present writ petition after a delay of 800 days, i.e. more than two years. 11. Writ jurisdiction being discretionary, this Court in the facts of the present case, is of the view that the petitioners were not diligently pursuing the lis and, therefore, if the officials have rejected the proceedings either on the ground of delay or for want of prosecution, no error can be found in the orders passed. 12. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Sazia Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad