JAGDISH PRASAD v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE DEPTT. LKO. AND 4 OTHERS
WRIC/3394/2025 · 2025-04-07
Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 133235 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 133235 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19397-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3394 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Umesh Dixit,Rajesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State and Mr. Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
2. The petitioner claims that the impugned order dated 31.01.2023 under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was passed without notice or hearing to the petitioner. He came to know about the proceedings on 03.03.2021.
3. Mr. Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha says that after the initial decision dated 20.12.2018, the brother of petitioner, namely, Moolchand who is also Khatedar of Gata No. 1131 moved an application for restoration which was allowed, but, thereafter he did not participate. He is, however, not aware as to whether the petitioner put in appearance or not.
4. In this view of the matter, we allow the petitioner to file an application for recall of the order dated 31.01.2023 and restoration of the proceedings against him within one week from today. Thereafter, the said recall application shall be considered as per law and decided within two months.
5. Till such decision is taken the structure existing on Gata No. 1120 and 1121, as alleged, shall not be demolished. However, if the petitioner does not file the said application within one week from today or after filing it, does not cooperate in the proceedings or seeks unnecessary adjournments, then, the benefit of this order will not be available to the petitioner, meaning thereby, the petitioner should ensure his or his counsel presence in the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
6. The writ petition is disposed of. [Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Santosh/- Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench