Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20464-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 84 of 2024 Applicant :- Jagannath Mishra And Others Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amitesh Pratap Singh,Mohammad Aslam Khan Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. We have heard Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mohammad Aslam Khan and Shri Amitesh Pratap Singh for the review-applicants. 2. It has been argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review-applicants that the writ petition was filed by the petitioners only seeking a Mandamus commanding the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sohawal to release the land in question situated in Village Ragghupur, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Sohawal Ayodhya in favour of the petitioners after the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C. were concluded /dropped by order dated 25.09.2012. It has been submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sohawal had passed an order reverting the land in question in favour of the petitioners on 25.09.2012 subject to the question of Title being decided by the Revenue Court. 3. In the meantime, proceedings were initiated under Sections 106/107/116 of the Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate concerned passed an order under Sections 145/ 146 Cr.P.C. taking away the land which was in the possession of the petitioners and give it to the Supurdgar Advocate Ram Singh, who in turn was directed to give the same to the Tehsildar Sohawal by an order dated 13.11.2019. 4. The order dated 13.11.2019 was challenged in a Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.1105 of 2013 which was disposed of by this Court by observing that a land in question should revert back to the person from whom the property was taken when the order of attachment was passed initially giving in Supurdari of Advocate Ram Singh. However, this order was to be subject to order passed by the Competent Civil / Revenue Court where dispute regarding ownership Title is/are pending. 5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the review-applicants that the writ petitioners had already been recorded as owners of the property in Mutation proceedings and therefore there was no occasion for this Court to direct the petitioners to approach the Revenue Court for a declaration of their Title. 6. It has been submitted that since the property was taken from the possession of the petitioners it should have been returned to the petitioners in terms of the order passed by this Court in the Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as aforesaid. 7. From the arguments as aforesaid we are convinced that there was no occasion for this Court to direct the petitioners to approach the Revenue Court for declaration of their Title. 8. The Review application is allowed. 9. The order dated 29.05.2024 is set aside. 10. The writ petition is restored to its original number. 11. However, the petitioners are directed to implead the private persons who were claiming Title to a property on the basis of 'Will' made out in their favour by the erstwhile tenure holder by moving an appropriate application for impleadment in the writ petition, so restored. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 N.PAL Digitally signed by :- NARESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- NARESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench