Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40649 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6715 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Ram Lali Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) (Ist), Lko. Division, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vimal Kishore Verma,Harsh Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J. 1. Heard Sri Vimal Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel on behalf of State- respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and copy has been served upon Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey on behalf of opposite party No.4. 2. It has been submitted that in the present case the dispute pertains to gata No.1 M=2.00 and 772M=4.00 which was recorded in the name of Kailash son of Shivwal who is father of the petitioner and subsequent to his death name of the petitioner was duly recorded in the revenue records being the real daughter of Kailash. It has been submitted that with regard to khatauni 1399 to 1404 fasli name of the petitioner was set aside from the revenue records without giving the petitioner opportunity of hearing and was recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. It is in aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner filed a case under Section 229 B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act before Deputy Collector, Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur which was numbered as Case No.72. The said case was listed on 29.3.2012 on which date the petitioner could not appear and accordingly the same was dismissed for want of prosecution. 3. The petitioner after lapse of three months filed application for recall of order dated 29.3.2012 but the said application was moved on 13.8.2012 after lapse of nearly five months. The reason given in the application was that when the case was listed in the meantime her son was missing from home and sometime passed in tracing his son. It is due to aforesaid fact that the petitioner could not prosecute her case under Section 229 B and accordingly the case was dismissed in default and when the petitioner came to know of the same she moved application for restoration. 4. The application for restoration was considered and rejected on 13.2.2018 solely on the ground that the petitioner did not produce any evidence with regard to the ground raised by her in her application. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 13.2.2018 passed by Deputy Collector, Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur preferred a revision before Additional Commissioner (Judicial) (1st), Lucknow Division, Lucknow. The revisional authority by means of order dated 28.4.2025 rejected the revision and in the present petition all the three orders dated 29.3.2012. 13.2.2018 and 28.4.2025 have been challenged. 6. It is noticed that in the proceedings under Section 229 B of U. P. Z. A. & L.R. Act are title proceeding and the petitioner had put her claim of bhumidhari rights existing in the revenue records but the same was dismissed in default on 29.3.2012 and application for restoration should have been filed within thirty days but the same was filed after nearly four and half months. The reason for the delay was stated to the effect that son of the petitioner was missing and she was in the process of tracing him and for the aforesaid reason the delay had been caused and moved application for restoration and prayed for condonation of the delay of the said period and also for restoration of the suit. 7. The revisional court has reproduced the entire memo of the revisionist and returned a finding recorded by the trial court in the impugned orders. This Court is of the considered opinion that while considering the application for condonation of delay the revisional authority should record his findings with regard to the explanation for the delay caused in filing the application for restoration. 8. It is not the case of the respondents that the averment made by the petitioner was false but only because the petitioner did not file any evidence in support of the averments made in the application for recall that the same was rejected. Had this aspect of the matter been decided by the respondents stating that the reason given were false, the application could have been dismissed but in the present case the application has been rejected stating that the ground taken in the application for recall are not supported by evidence. Undoubtedly, while condoning delay the competent authority has to consider the reason for the delay and if the delay has been satisfactorily explained he can proceed to condone the same but in the present case while considering the application for recall they have not adequately considered the application for recall and dismissed the same without any application of mind. We further note that the authority also has not considered any of the arguments raised by the petitioner in the revision. Unfortunately, the revisional authority only reproduced copy of the memo of the revision and the findings recorded by the trial court. There is no independent finding or consideration given by the revisional court and accordingly the same was such an order which is arbitrary, without application of mind and deserves to be set aside. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that liberal approach should have been taken by the authorities duly considering that the delay was only of five months and there was no rights of any private individual involved in respect of the said lis as the land has been recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha, she was in possession of that land and the delay could not have caused prejudice to any of the parties. 10. Apart from the above, we find that the ground taken by the petitioner in her application for restoration was not decided by the opposite parties on merits but merely it was stated that no evidence has been filed in support of the application for restoration. 11. Considering the ground taken by the petitioner for not filing the application for recall within time because of the fact that his son was missing, specially the said fact was never contested and, therefore, would be reasonable ground for the delay in filing the application for recall. Apart from the above, this Court finds that the delay was not for any extraordinary long length of time and accordingly liberal approach should have been taken in this regard and, therefore, I find it a fit case to allow the applications for condonation of delay. 12. In light of the above, the impugned orders dated 29.3.2012 and 13.2.2018 passed by Deputy Collector, Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur as well as revisional order dated 28.4.2025 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial)(1st), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. 13. The suit proceedings are restored to its original number and opposite party No.2 i.e. Deputy Collector, Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur is directed to proceed to consider and decide the same on merits in accordance with law. 14. The writ petition thus stands allowed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 16.7.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench