Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7749-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1012 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kamal Chandra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue U.P. Lko. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Pushpila Bisht Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Let learned Counsel for the petitioner implead the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited appropriately as a respondent during the course of the day. Counsel for the aforesaid Corporation is already present. 2.. Heard Mr. Prabhakar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Pushipal Bisht, learned Counsel for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Mr. Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 3. The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent No.9 proposed to seek a dealership of retail outlet from the respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for running an outlet for sale of petroleum products etc. As he did not have land in village Dharampur, District-Hardoi, therefore, he contacted the respondent No.8 but even the respondent No.8 did not have sufficient land. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.8 moved an application for correction of map which was allowed ex-parte without hearing the petitioners who were affected parties, as claimed. An application for recall of the order has been filed by the petitioners. However, the respondent No.8 initiated proceedings for demarcation of boundaries of his land based on the corrected map which was also allowed allegedly ex-parte without notice to the petitioners although, they were affected parties. The petitioners have filed an application for recall of this order also. 4. The submission is that in the proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the Revenue Inspector has submitted a report favourable to the respondent No.8 containing the signatures of two persons, the father and uncle of the petitioner, who have died long back, therefore, the entire proceedings are illegal and fraudulent. The grievance is that based on the aforesaid exercise, the respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited proposes to issue a letter of intent to the respondent No.9 and then construction of the retail outlet will take place thereby gravely prejudicing the petitioner whose applications for recall are still pending. 5. Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned Counsel for the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited says that a letter of intent has already been issued to respondent No.9 and No objection certificates from the revenue authorities are also received although, no objection certificate from Public Works Department is awaited. She further informs that the representation of the petitioners has been decided and communicated to them on 27.01.2025. On being confronted, learned Counsel for the petitioner feigned ignorance. He has been provided a copy of the said document. 6. Mr. Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State informed the Court that the application for recall filed by the petitioners is fixed for 11.02.2025 for recall of order passed under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 7. Be that as it may, without entering into the merits of the issues involved, let Sub Divisional Magistrate before whom the aforesaid two recall applications are said to be pending, consider and dispose of the same at the earliest, say, within a period of three weeks after hearing the concerned parties. All the pleas raised by the petitioners in the applications including those referred hereinabove shall be taken into consideration, consequences will follow accordingly as per law. 8. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited is already represented, therefore, it has knowledge of all these pending proceedings and the stand of the petitioners, therefore, any action taken hereinafter will obviously abide by whatever orders are passed in the proceedings which are pending. 9. Considering the order passed hereinabove, we see no reason to issue notice to respondent No.7 to 9 as we have not decided the merits of the pleas raised by the petitioners. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. [Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Order Date :- 6.2.2025 -Piyush- Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench