Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37798 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6252 of 2025 Petitioner :- Banshi Lal Sahu And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abdul Alim Khan,Mohd. Vakar Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Abdul Alim Khan, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondents are dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners are that present dispute pertains to Gata NO. 430 Ka and 381 situated at Village Puraini, Pargana, Hisampur, Tehsil Kaiserganj, District Bahraich with regard to which the proceedings U/S 229B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act were instituted by the petitioners before the S.D.M. Kaisarganj. 4. In the said proceeding notices were issued to the defence, namely, Mangal Bhure S/o Chhedi who on receipt of the notices appeared before the proceedings and appeal was filed but admittedly no counter affidavit was filed. In the aforesaid circumstances, the suit was decreed in favour of petitioners by means of order dated 08.02.2001. 5. After lapse of nearly 6 years, an application for recall of the order dated 08.02.2001 was filed which was rejected on 30.01.2017 on the ground that the private respondents could not demonstrate the delay in filing restoration application and also the fact that it could not deny that he has filed his appeal but subsequently deliberately did not participate in the said proceedings. 6. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that a revision was preferred by the respondents which has been decided by the impugned order dated 01.04.2025. The said revision has been filed after recording the fact that the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate was illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as only the plaintiff was heard and even the State was not given an opportunity to file a counter affidavit nor were represented or heard while deciding the said suit. He was of the considered view that a question of adverse possession can be decided only when the State or the Gaon Sabha was made parties and are duly represented and heard and therefore assailed the finding of adverse possession andthat the judgment was lacking in material particulars and also on the ground of inadequate representation by the necessary parties, the revision has been allowed remanding the matter back for fresh consideration before Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Learned counsel for petitioners has assailed the validity of the impugned order dated 01.04.2025 but could not dispute the findings recorded by him while allowing the said revision. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition and has supported the impugned order. 8. After hearing the rival contention of the parties and perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that it was necessary for the court on the first instance hearing the suit U/S 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act to have duly heard and appreciated the arguments of the State as well as Goan Sabha inasmuch as the claim of the petitioners pertains to adverse possession of the disputed land. In such circumstances, it was necessary to establish that the possession was adverse and in the knowledge of the recorded tenure holder. 9. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that this Court agrees with the findings recorded by the revisional authority that even if private respondents did not put in appearance in the suit proceedings, it did not debar the Gaon Sabha or the State to participate in the said proceedings. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has committed material error and accordingly this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the findings recorded therein by the impugned judgment of the revisional authority. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 10. However, in the remand proceedings the competent authority is directed to expedite the same subject to cooperation and participation by the petitioners. Petitioners shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application for interim relief and in case such an application is made, the same shall be decided expeditiously, say, within a period of two weeks from filing of the said application in accordance with law. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 4.7.2025/Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench