Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47494 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5322 of 2025 Petitioner :- Saleem Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Bahraich And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukut Bihari Tripathi,Ram Vishal Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Shri Mukut Bihari Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondents no. 4 to 6, is dispensed with. 3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing thereby the impugned order dated 01.03.2023 passed in Revision No. 36/2022, Computerized No. C202208000000036, under Section 219 of UPLR Act, 1901 by opposite party no.2 i.e. Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and the exparte order dated 17.06.2015 passed in Case No. 2309 new case no. 3309, under Section 34 Land Revenue Act, by opposite party no.3 i.e. Tehsildar, Kaiserganj, Bahraich, as contained in Annexure No.1 and 2 tot his writ petition. II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no.3 i.e. Tehsildar, Kaiserganj, Bahraich to decide the Case No. 2309 new case no. 3309, under Section 34 Land Revenue Act, "Saleem Khan Versus Mehrunnisha" on merits after providing opportunity of hearing to file objection and hearing tot he petitioner. III. Any such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper." 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present dispute pertains to various plots of land which were recorded in the name of Samon Khan situated at Village Kundaspara, Pargana Hisampur, Tehsil Kaiserganj, District Bahraich. The said land was subsequently mutated on 17.05.2010 in the name of Raheema (wife), Husaini (son), Khursheed (son), Aavesh (son) and Mahisrunnisha @ Mehrunnisha (unmarried daughter) being legal heirs of Samon Khan on 23.103.2010. Subsequently some dispute arose between the family and an application under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act was filed by Mehruunisha, before the Tehsildar, Tehsil Kaiserganj, District Bahraich for correction of her name as Mehrunnisha in place of Mahisrunnisha. The application was allowed on 31.1.2013 and the P.A.11 was amended and the name of Mahisrunnisha was corrected as Mehrunnisha. 5. The petitioner had purchased the property from Mehrunnisha. In the meanwhile an application under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act was also moved by the petitioner, which was allowed and an application for recall was moved by the respondent no.5, which again was allowed. Against which, the petitioner yet again moved an application for recall, which was allowed on 11.2.2015 and the order dated 21.10.2013, which was allowed and the matter was listed for final hearing. It is subsequently submitted that the petitioner failed to appear before the Tehsildar, Tehsil Kaiserganj, District Bahraich and subsequently by means of order dated 17.6.2015, his application for recall was rejected and the order dated 21.10.2013 was restored, by which the land has been mutated in favour of respondent no.5. 6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.6.2015, the petitioner has filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, some time in the year 2022 after a lapse of 7 years, which has been rejected only on the ground of delay. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while moving the application for recall before the Tehsildar, Tehsil Kaiserganj, District Bahraich the petitioner had engaged a lawyer who was prosecuting the said case while the petitioner was working in a far of place. It is due to the said reason, the petitioner could not prosecute the application for recall for which the same was rejected. In the application for condonation of delay filed along with revision, the petitioner has stated that he was not aware of the order dated 17.6.2015 and he tried to contact his lawyer several times and after great difficulty when he came to know about the order dated 17.06.2015 he has filed the revision. He submits that though there has been some delay but the delay is of bonafide and due to the fact that the petitioner was working in a far of place and therefore prayed for condonation of delay. 8. The revisional authority has only stated that the facts narrated by the petitioner are not acceptable without even considering the said facts. With regard to the delay in filing the revision the delay is extremely long, has rejected the same. 9. Considering the impugned order I find that in an application for condonation of delay certain reasons have been stated in an attempt to explain the delay in filing the proceedings, then it is incumbent upon the Authority to look into the facts before arriving at satisfaction, as to whether the delay has been satisfactorily explained or not? Without considering the reasons for delay rejecting the same summarily would be an exercise an futility, such an order would arbitrary. In the present case the Revisional Authority in a very summary and cursory manner rejected the reasons stated by the petitioner, by which delay has been occasioned but did not deal with any of the reason therein. 10. According, I find that there is miscarriage of justice in not correctly appreciating and deciding the application for condonation of delay, filed by the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, this Court is also considering the explanation given by the petitioner in application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and find that the adequate reasons has been stated by the petitioner for filing the revision with the delay, I find that the petitioner had right to contact his lawyer several times and only thereafter he would come to know about the progress of his application for recall, subsequently he would obtain the certified copy of the same and filed the revision. 12. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, liberal view should have been taken by the revisional authority. Accordingly this Court find sufficient ground taken by the petitioner in the application for condonation of delay and delay has been condoned. 13. In the light of the above, petition is allowed. Accordingly, the order dated 01.03.2023 is set aside. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. The matter is remitted to the Additional Commissioner-III, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda for deciding the revision preferred by the petitioner on merits with expedition, in accordance with law, after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Muk Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench