Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41318 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 665 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dayaram And 2 Others Respondent :- Board Of Revenue, Lko. U.P. Thru. Chairman And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1 and 2 and Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava for respondent No.6 and Sri Atul Srivastava holding brief of Sri Mohan Singh for Gaon Sabha- respondent No.7. 2. It has been submitted that an application under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act was preferred by opposite parry No.s 3 and 4 before District Magistrate, Barabanki which was registered as case No.308/466/308(2016) and was decided on 25.2.2016. The application was allowed. 3. The petitioners who were the respondents in the said case being aggrieved by the order of Additional Collector, Barabanki preferred a revision before Board of Revenue which by means of the impugned order dated 1.4.2025 has dismissed the revision only on account of the fact that the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate any cause of action in filing the revison or that they are necessary parties to the dispute. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the application filed by opposite party No.s 3 and 4 before the Collector, Barabanki under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act would indicate that he had alleged that the map with regard to his gata No.155 area 0.031 hectare was incorrect and required correction and even the order of Additional Collector, Barabanki dated 25.2.2016 would indicate that while allowing the application he has further recorded that the land situated at gata No.s 151, 151/1361, 152/1362, 153, 152, 154, 155 and 156 would be affected as the petitioners, who were the respondents in the said proceedings are tenure holders of gata No.151/1361, 153 and 154 and they were aggrieved by the order of Additional Collector, Barabanki and this fact has been ignored by the Board of Revenue. Even learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the fact that the land of the petitioners is also effected by the order passed by Additional Collector, Barabanki dated 25.2.2016. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that the ground on which the revision of the petitioner has been rejected is clearly perverse and contrary to the record as the petitioners fall within the definition of aggrieved persons and consequently had a right to file revision against the order dated 25.2.2016. Undoubtedly, may be this aspect of the matter has not been clearly stated in the memo of teh revision but it is evident from the order of Additional Collector, Barabanki itself. 6. Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, the order dated 1.4.2025 passed by Board of Revenue is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Board of Revenue for proceeding to consider and decide the same afresh on merits in accordance with law. 7. With aforesaid directions and observations the petition stands disposed of. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 18.7.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench