HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 121 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 and 2 and Sri Pramod Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Vijayendra Pandey for respondent No.4 while notice on behalf of respondent No.3- gaon sabha has been accepted by Sri Pankaj Gupta. 2. It has been submitted that the petitioner was granted an agricultural patta by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tirwa, District Kannauj on 17.7.2002 after following due procedure prescribed. It has been submitted that number of pattas were granted to landless agricultural labourers and, therefore all the persons whose names were not included in the said list moved complaint against grant of pattas and accordingly the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act were initiated for cancellation of the pattas. The Collector, Kannauj by means of his order dated 24.11.2013 set aside the order of Additional Collector, Farrukhabad's order dated 19.6.1995 and rejected the application for cancellation of the patta but subsequently recalled the previous order dated 19.6.1995. He also cancelled entire allotment made vide resolution dated 19.8.1990 and also the approval dated 2.8.1991 made in favour of 277 allottees and vested the entire land into the gram sabha for making fresh allotment. 3. Against the order dated 24.11.2013 certain revisions were filed under Section 333 (2) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division who by means of order dated 25.2.2004 allowed the revision and set aside the order of Collector Kannauj dated 24.11.2003. It is submitted that another revision had been filed against the order of Additional Commissioner dated 25.2.2004 before the Board of Revenue at Allahabad who by means of his order dated 19.1.2011 had remanded the case to the Collector, Kannauj to initiate fresh proceedings for cancellation of allotment dated 19.8.1990. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Kumar Verma, Bhavana Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta, Vijayendra Pandey Sandeep Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) 4. It is in remand proceedings that fresh order was passed on 3.1.2018 by Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Kanpur. While passing the said order he had noticed that there was a large scale irregularity in grant of the pattas and there were allegations that pattas were granted even on the lands where pattas was allotted previously on the same land and, therefore, he directed that the authorities should look into all the allotments on case to case basis and whenever they find that there has been irregularity/illegalities they should again initiate process for cancellation of the pattas and after recording aforesaid direction dropped the proceedings. The petitioner preferred revision before Additional Commissioner against the order dated 3.1.2018. The Additional Commissioner, Judicial rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner stating that no order has been passed adverse to the petitioner and only suitable directions have been given to the authorities to consider all the cases on case to case basis and proceed afresh individually against all the persons who were granted patta against law and arbitrarily. 5. The revision was rejected on 28.2.2019 then the petitioner preferred an application or recall of the order dated 28.2.2019 and the said order was recalled by means of order dated 11.4.2019. Against the order dated 11.4.2019 private respondents preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which revision has been allowed by means of order dated 18.7.2024. While rejecting the previous revision Board of Revenue has noticed that the order dated 28.2.2019 was passed after hearing the petitioner and it cannot be said that the same was ex-parte while recall application which would be interfered only on the conditions prescribed under the proviso to Section 209 of U.P. Revenue Code and consequently the application for recall itself was not maintainable and, therefore, allowed the said revision. 6. We have perused the order dated 18.2.2019 and find that the said order was passed after hearing all the parties and accordingly it cannot be said that the same was an ex- parte order and accordingly the revisional authority had rightly allowed the revision holding that the order dated 28.2.2019 was not an ex-parte order. 7. Considering the entire facts, it is noticed that there are allegations with regard to large scale irregularities in allotting the land by the revenue authority in Village Auser, Tehsil Tirwa, District Kannauj and Village Rapra and other villages in Tehsil Tirwa, District Kannauj. In the first round of litigation we find that the matter stood remitted to the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) for consideration of the matter under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code and in remand proceedings and Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) after examining the entire records was of the view that each fact should be looked into carefully to find out infirmities made in allotment of the pattas and accordingly directed the revenue authorities to do the needful and ensure proceedings afresh against each of the said allottees whose allottment was illegal and arbitrary and against the statutory provisions. 8. There is no dispute that till date no fresh proceedings have been initiated and it WRIB No. 121 of 2025 2 seems that only with a view to subvert any adverse proceedings against the allottees the order dated 3.11.2018 has been assailed before higher forums. A perusal of the order dated 3.11.2018 would further indicate that it is not adverse to any individual as existing on the said date and the previous order of the Collector had been set aside and the Additional District Magistrate Judicial in the remand proceedings had directed the revenue authorities to make further inquiries and it is on the direction that fresh inquiry proceedings are to be initiated against such allottments which are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. Accordingly, I do not see any reason as to why the petitioner was prejudiced or aggrieved so as to prefer an appeal and further a revision against the said order despite the fact that Board of Revenue has set aside the order dated 11.4.2019. We find that appeal still remains pending with the Additional Commissioner being case No.00533/2018 computerized case No.C 201803000000533. We do not find any reason as to why pendency of the appeal would prohibit / restrain the revenue authorities from complying with the direction issued by Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) in computerized case No.C 201803000000533. 9. Accordingly, we find that there is no infirmity in the order of the Board of Revenue dated 18.7.2024 and the revision has been rightly allowed holding that Additional Commission had wrongly exercised the jurisdiction while entertaining the application for recall despite the fact that all the parties were heard by him while passing the order dated 28.2.2019. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and especially looking into the allegations on much large scale and irregularities, we direct the District Magistrate, Kannauj to ensure compliance of the order of Additional District Magistrate dated 3.1.2018. Additional Commissioner is further directed to dispose of the revision, expeditiously, say within next three weeks in accordance with law. 10. With aforesaid observations and directions the petition stands disposed of. September 1, 2025 RKM. WRIB No. 121 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench