Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8416 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1151 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Murat Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Almas Farogh,Mohan Singh,Mohd.Saulat Wasim,Saleem Ahmad Khan Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for Gram Sabha and Mohd. Saulat Wasim, learned counsel for the private respondent no.4. 3. Under challenge is the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the respondent no.2, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed as a consequence the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the respondent no.3 has been affirmed. 4. The counsel for the petitioner has urged that an application under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was moved which came to be decided ex-parte. The petitioner, in the meantime, had filed his objections regarding the recall of the said order. It is the case of the petitioner that the private respondent no.4 could not have been granted the benefit of Section 67-A of the Code of 2006 for the reason that he does not fall within the category of persons enumerated in Section 67-A and in absence thereof no such order could have been passed. It is also stated that the petitioner is neither in possession rather it is the house of the petitioner which is existing and by incorrectly showing the said house to be his own, the private respondent had moved the said application. 5. Apart from the aforesaid fact that the respondent no.4 is not in possession, the wife of the respondent no.4 is a license holder of a fair price shop in the State of Haryana. The private respondent no.4 also has a four-wheeler in his name and for the said reason, he cannot be said to be a person within the category, who could be granted the benefit of Section 67-A of the Code of 2006. 6. Moreover, the private respondent no.4 had instituted a suit before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court no.24, Sultanpur in respect of Plot No.279 measuring 0.013 hectares. It is urged that in the said proceedings an Advocate Commissioner was appointed who had visited the site, which clearly indicated the possession of the petitioner and in such circumstances, the order dated 20.03.2018 was passed in ignorance of the aforesaid material. 7. It is further submitted that once the petitioner had moved an application for recall and had also brought on record the documents indicating the ineligibility of the private respondent no.4 and in pursuance thereof, a report was called for and the Lekhpal had clearly indicated that the private respondent no.4 was not entitled to the benefit of Section 67-A of the Code of 2006. It is urged that the revisional court has rejected the revision of the petitioner and upheld the order dated 20.03.2018 without considering the report, which clearly indicated that the respondent no.4 was not entitled to the benefit of Section 67-A. 8. Having considered the aforesaid submission and upon perusal of material on record, this Court finds that against the order dated 20.03.2018 the petitioner has already filed an application for recall, which is already pending. Since the application for recall is already pending, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere, leaving it open for the petitioner to press his application and needless to say that the same shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned without being influenced by the fact that the revision of the petitioner was dismissed by the revisional court. It is also clarified that mere dismissal of the revision will not come in the way of the petitioner in so far as his application for recall is concerned which shall be decided on its own merit on the basis of the material evidence and submissions advanced by the parties. The respondent no.3 is also directed to consider and decide the said pending application as expeditiously as possible after allowing full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment. The learned Standing Counsel has assured the Court that post the dismissal of the revision on 27.11.2024, the records could be expeditiously placed before the Court of first instance i.e. respondent no.3 for disposal of the recall application. It is made clear that the Court has also not examined the merits which have been left open consciously for the reasons that the application for recall is engaging the attention of the appropriate forum. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Mohd. Sharif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench