Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46553 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5887 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Gauda Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shaquiel Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Shaquiel Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that present dispute relates to the land situated at Gata No. 274, measuring area 0.040 hectares, situated at Village - Jahandeeh, Pargana and Tehsil - Tulsipur, District - Balrampur. It is submitted that one Mohammad Haneef was original tenure holder of the aforesaid land who died on 14.11.2022. Subsequently, on an application preferred by the petitioner the said land was mutated in this name as he was able to produce and prove the registered will deed dated 25.10.2018, by means of order dated 11.01.2023. 4. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that against the aforesaid order of mutation, the private respondents had moved an application for restoration after lapse of two years, seeking recall of order dated 11.01.2023. Initially interim order was passed in favour of private respondents on 16.05.2023. Subsequently, the restoration application was rejected by Tehsildar, Tulsipur by means of order dated 06.02.2025. Being aggrieved by order dated 06.02.2025, the private respondents filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tulsipur, who passed an interim order dated 24.04.2025, and stayed the implementation of order dated 06.02.2025, passed by the Tehsildar, Tulsipur, against which present writ petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submits that the appeal against the order of rejection of recall application would not be maintainable. 6. Considering the aforesaid submissions it is noticed that as per Section 209 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the orders against which no appeal can be filed are clearly stated. For the sake of convenience, Section 209 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is quoted herein below :- "209. Bar against certain appeals.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 207 and 208, no appeal shall lie against any order or decree- (a) made under [Chapter XI] of this Code; (b) granting or rejecting an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963; (c) rejecting an application for [revision]; (d) granting or rejecting an application for stay; (e) remanding the case to any subordinate Court; (f) where such order or decree is of an interim nature. (g) passed by Court or officer with the consent of parties; or (h) where order has been passed ex-parte or by default: Provided that any party aggrieved by order passed ex-parte or by default, may move application for setting aside such order within a period of thirty days from the date of the order: Provided further that no such order shall be reversed or altered without previously summoning the party in whose favour order has been passed to appear and be heard in support of it.]" 7. From the perusal of aforesaid Section 209 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, it is noticed that application for restoration is not included in the aforesaid Section and consequently it cannot be said that appeal against any order passed on restoration application would not be maintainable. Apart from the above, in any view of the matter, proceedings in which application for restoration was filed was for mutation under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Any decision passed by the competent authority under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is appealable under Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Therefore, in any view of the matter rejection of recall application in the proceedings arising out of Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, an appeal would be maintainable under Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Accordingly, this Court finds that appeal against order passed on restoration application was maintainable and arguments of the petitioner in this regard are rejected. 8. The second ground raised by the petitioner is that no reasons have been assigned in the order dated 24.04.2025. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 24.04.2025, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tulsipur clearly indicates his satisfaction that in case interim order is not granted then there is all likelihood for alienation of the property and this Court finds sufficient reasons for passing the impugned order. Hence, sufficient reasons have been indicated by the appellate authority while passing the impugned order, and this Court do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 24.04.2025. 9. This Court finds that appeal is still pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the petitioner has put in appearance and she can raise all the grounds on merit before the appellate authority. 10. Subject to aforesaid discussion, present writ petition which lacks merit is dismissed. 11. However, the appellate authority is directed to expedite the proceedings. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings before the appellate authority. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench