Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13336 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 202 of 2025 Petitioner :- Awam Special Teachers Training College Thru. Manager Bismillah Khan And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Collector Ayodhya And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Mohan Singh learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.4. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners claim the following reliefs:- "a. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 passed by opposite party no.2 and order dated 30.12.2024 and 18.08.2021 passed by opposite party no.3 (as contained in Annexure No.1, 2 and 3 to this writ petition) in the interest of justice. b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the opposite party no.3 to decide the appeal no.987 of 2021 "Anil Singh & another vs Nirmal Kumar & Ors under Section 210 (now 207) of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 on the ground of maintainability and also consider the locus of opposite party no.5 and 6, in the interest of justice." Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that initially a suit under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was instituted which came to be decreed. In furtherance of the same, the final decree proceedings were also carried out and the parties were granted their respective shares. None of the parties to the said suit raised any objection nor carried the matter in an appeal, however, the private respondent nos.5 and 6 in their personal capacity who otherwise is Gram Pradhan and a Panchayat member moved an application seeking recall of the order 23.01.2020 passed under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The private respondent nos.5 and 6, simultaneously, also preferred an appeal before the respondent no.3. While the appeal was pending, the private respondents also moved an application for amendment in the memo of appeal. Against the said application for amendment the petitioners filed their objections on 09.10.2023. The Court concerned after hearing the parties allowed the application for amendment vide order dated 30.12.2024, it also observed that the issue of maintainability which is sought to be raised by the petitioner shall be considered while dealing with the appeal on merits. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner being aggrieved against the order dated 30.12.2024 whereby the amendment was allowed also challenged the initial order entertaining the appeal dated 18.08.2021. The aforesaid two orders were assailed in the revision before the Board of Revenue who after hearing the parties by order dated 04.02.2025 dismissed the same. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioners have challenged the order dated 04.02.2025 whereby the Board of Revenue rejected the revision of the petitioner, order dated 30.12.2024 passed by the respondent no.3 whereby the application for amendment of the private respondents was allowed as well as the order dated 18.08.2021 whereby the appeal of the private respondent nos.5 and 6 was entertained. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal, since, the private respondents were not parties to the suit hence they could not file the appeal. It is also urged that his preliminary objection have not been considered rather the amendment has been allowed and his revision is also dismissed by the Board of Revenue which is not in sound exercise of jurisdiction. Having considered the aforesaid submission and from perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that apparently the order dated 18.08.2021 whereby the appeal has been entertained by the respondent no.3 is merely an order of admission which does not affect or finally decide right of any party especially when the appeal is yet to be heard. It is always open for the petitioners to contest the appeal on merits, hence, to that extent, the order dated 18.08.2021 cannot be faulted. In so far as the order dated 30.12.2024 whereby the application for amendment was allowed is noticed the same has been allowed by the Court permitting the private respondents to amend the memo of appeal which only contains the ground and that perhaps cannot prejudice the petitioners as he always has rights to make submission on the factual or legal aspect of the matter before the appellate court which is seized of the matter. It is in the aforesaid context, noticing the aforesaid that the Board of Revenue has rejected the revision of the petitioner and the said order does not suffer from any palpable error which may persuade this Court to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It will be relevant to observe that the lower appellate court has already noticed that the preliminary objection as raised by the petitioner can be considered by the appellate court at the time of hearing of the appeal. This apparently takes care of the apprehension of the petitioner. Admittedly, no separate application or raising preliminary objection was filed on record till date. All the objections which are sought to be raised by the petitioner regarding maintainability of the proceedings are left open and shall be considered by the court concerned as and when raised. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition which is, accordingly, dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to raise and contest his preliminary objection before the lower appellate court where the matter is pending. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench