Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20323 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000174 of 1997 Petitioner :- Bhupendra Singh And Others Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Lucknow Counsel for Petitioner :- G.K.Pathak,Dharmendra Singh,Raghvendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J. 1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajiv Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 15.5.1997, passed in Appeal No.39/985-86 (State Vs. Nirmal Singh) and Appeal No.36 of 1985-86 (State Vs. Bakhtawar Singh). 3. Factual matrix of the case is that Case No.197/4 (State Vs. Bakhtawar Singh) has been instituted by the State before the prescribed authority by issuing a notice under Section 10 (2). The father of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and husband of petitioner No.3 filed an objection against the notice. The prescribed authority declared the surplus land of the recorded tenure holder namely Bakhtawar Singh by declaring 19.602 acres land as surplus against which Bakhtawar Singh (now deceased) had preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri who also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 6.10.1977. 4. Vide order dated 15.11.1979, Writ Petition No.1210 of 1978 has been allowed and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority. Thereafter, vide order dated 4.2.1980, the appellate authority also remanded the case to the prescribed authority and vide order dated 30.12.1981, the prescribed authority rejected the notice issued under Section 10 (2) of the Act after perusal of all the records and evidence collected during the course of proceeding. 5. The State of U.P. filed an appeal before the appellate authority but the same was dismissed and no writ petition has been filed, therefore, the order dated 30.12.1981 became final, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. On 17.9.1984, Bakhtawar Singh moved an application for restoration of possession as the land declared surplus vide order dated 30.3.1977, which was allowed and the notice against Bakhtawar Singh has been cancelled vide order dated 30.12.1981. 7. In assailing the order impugned, submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that once the appeal of State of U.P. Vs. Bakhtawar Singh was dismissed in default, there was no justification to consider the claim setup by Nirmal Singh alongwith Bakhtawar Singh. Next submission is that once the order became final between the parties, it was not left upon to the State to file application for staying claim before the appellate authority. It has further been submitted that the impugned order is wholly erroneous, misconceived and not justified in law. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that if in case recall application in the case of Bakhtawar Singh is pending or disposed of, that may be taken into consideration. 9. After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record. 10. On perusal, it is evident that the case of Bakhtawar Singh was finally decided and possession was handed over to Bakhtawar Singh, which was leased out to some persons, therefore, there is no justification on the part of the District Judge to re-agitate the matter again. The impugned order is wholly illegal and is liable to be set aside, in view of the finding recorded above. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order, being illegal, is hereby set aside and the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 12. In case any recall application is pending, same shall be subject matter of the present litigation. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Gautam Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM TECKCHANDANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench