Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42563 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 686 of 2025 Petitioner :- Raksha Ram And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shankar Lal Pandey,Abhishek Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Sharma Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners, Shri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of State respondents no.1 to 4 and Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent no.5. 2. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the present proceedings are with regard to the property of one Mitai, who was the recorded tenure holder of Gata No.291 and 32 situated at Village Panthipur, Ashrafpur Majgawa, Tehsil Jalalpur District Ambedkar Nagar. It has been submitted that after the death of Mitai, Mangaru and Shyam Lal, two sons were claimants and legal heirs and their names were duly mutated in the revenue records. In 1978 Shyam Lal went missing and could not be traced for a long period of time and he was also issueless and consequently, the petitioners being nephew of Shyam Lal moved an application for mutation claiming that they were entitled to succeed the property of Shyam Lal. The application for mutation filed before the Tehsildar under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. Orders in favour of the petitioner were passed on 28.12.1990. 3. It is after expiry of 27 years that Shyam Lal filed an application for restoration on 01.06.2017. The petitioners filed their objections stating that the application for recall was belated and time barred and accordingly the restoration application was rejected on 15.02.2025. Against the order dated 15.02.2025, the respondent no.5 Shyam Lal preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, who allowed the appeal and restored the matter to the Tehsildar to decide the same on merits within a period of one month vide order dated 31.05.2025. Against the aforesaid order, a revision was filed before the Board of Revenue which confirmed the order dated 31.05.2025 and remanding the matter back to the Tehsildar. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders passed by the appellate authority dated 31.05.2025 and the revisional order dated 09.07.2025 are arbitrary and deserves to be interfered with. He submits that the application for recall was highly time barred and having been filed after a delay of 27 years and no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming and consequently both the courts below have erred in allowing the same and prayed for setting aside the aforesaid orders. 5. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand opposed the writ petition and supported the orders dated 31.05.2025 and 09.07.2025. 6. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the records. 7. In the present case, the sole controversy is with regard to the existence of Shyam Lal. According to the petitioners, Shyam Lal had gone missing in 1978 and accordingly the application for mutation was preferred by them, on which an order dated 28.12.1990 was passed in their favour mutating their name after deleting the name of Shyam Lal, who was missing since 1978. It seems that an application has been preferred by Shyam Lal on 01.06.2017 for recalling of the previous orders. The reasons given by the Board of Revenue for restoring the matter back to the Tehsildar for being decided on merits in the fact that substantial rights of an individual are to be decided pertaining to the fact as to whether he is alive and entitled to the property duly owned by him. He had considered the fact that only in the interregnum period, a civil death was presumed and names of the petitioners were mutated and the peculiar circumstances of the case, it is necessary that the matter should be decided on merits rather than the claim of the private respondents be rejected on the ground of limitation. 8. It is in the aforesaid peculiar circumstances, I do not find that the reasons given by the Board of Revenue are perverse or require any interference. For certain reasons Shyam Lal could not be traced since 1978 and in the meanwhile the petitioners got his name mutated in place of Shyam Lal but on reappearance of Shyam Lal, the application for mutation in favour of the petitioners certainly deserves reconsideration on merits. Shyam Lal will have to produce an adequate reasons for his disappearance and also show material regarding his identity. In case, it can be demonstrated that he is the very person (Shyam Lal), who is opposite party no.3 then certainly, he would be entitled to be the property which in any case was existing in his name prior to the same having been mutated in favour of petitioners. 9. Accordingly, for the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any ground for interference in the order of the Board of Revenue or with the appellate order passed by the ADM, Ayodhya, Ambedkar Nagar, Tehsil Jalalpur. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition stands dismissed. However, the remand proceedings before the respondent no.4 may be concluded with expedition, say within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before him in accordance with law. Parties before this Court are undertaking to cooperate in the proceedings. [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 24.7.2025 KR Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench