Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1769 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 161 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shiv Pratap Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Randheer Singh,Katyayan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice for the respondent No.3. In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent No.4 is dispensed with. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (for short, 'the Code, 2006') was initiated by the private- respondent No.4 and the same came to be decided ex-parte in favour of the private-respondent No.4. Being aggrieved, the petitioners had moved an application for recall on 06.12.2022 which is pending before the respondent No.2. However, since, the date of filing, the same has not been formally registered nor notices have been issued and neither it has been disposed of and in such circumstances, the petitioners have been left with a precarious circumstances which is depriving them from an opportunity of hearing to get their lis decided. In the meantime, the private-respondent No.4 is attempting to get the order of demarcation executed, which would render the application for recall almost infructuous. The petitioners have also filed an appeal, which is also engaging the attention of the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and though the said appeal is accompanied with an application for seeking contention of delay, however, the petitioners state that they do not wish to press their appeal. It is stated that the petitioners may be permitted to press his application for recall which is pending before the respondent No.2 and in such circumstances, an appropriate order be passed to get the said proceedings decided at an early date. The petitioners shall also move an appropriate application in respect of the pending appeal. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, it appears that an order had been passed under Section 24 of the Code, 2006 in favour of the private-respondent No.4 against which the petitioners have filed an application for recall. Learned standing counsel would not indicate as to why the said application, a copy of a certified copy of the said application which has been brought on record as Annexure No.7 has remanded unattended since 06.12.2022. However, noticing that the matter is pending, this Court, at this stage, is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose will be solved in keeping the petition pending and ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.2 to consider the pending application of the petitioners for recall expeditiously as possible, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties specifically noticing the fact that the said application has remained unattended since 06.12.2022, hence, expedition must be shown and the application for recall be decided preferably within a period of four weeks from the date, a certified copy of this order is placed before the Court concerned. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the Court concerned shall decide the application of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stand disposed of. Order Date :- 9.1.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench