Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44244 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7166 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Pushpa Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Ehtesham Khan,J.B. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Shobhit Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Mohammad Ehtesham Khan, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Sanjay Kr. Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shobhit Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 & 5. 2. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being heard and decided at the admission stage itself. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that that the present dispute pertains to Khata No. 168 comprising of Gata No. 370, 467, 468, 469, 470 and 639 situated in Village - Purab Gaon, Tehsil Unchahar, Pargana - Dalmau, District Raebareli. He further submits that the said land was recorded initially in the name of Raj Bahadur Singh and after his death came to be recorded in the name of his widow Mst. Rani. After the death of Mst. Rani, the land came to be recorded in the name of Tribbhuwan Bahadur Singh who brother of Raj Bahadur Singh and considering the fact that Raj Bahadur Singh and Mst. Rani died inter-state and Tribhuwan Singh being brother of Raj Bahadur Singh, the land came to be recorded in his favour. The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of Tribhuwan Bahadur Singh who had executed a registered sale deed in her favour. 4. It has been submitted that one application was preferred by one Shiv Mohan Singh claiming that he is the adopted son of Mst. Rani and the application was rejected by means of order dated 30.01.1978 by the Naib Tehsildar. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was allowed on 08.02.1979 and subsequently a recall was given by the petitioner was rejected on 04.08.1983. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner had preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow and the said revision was allowed by means of order dated 04.10.1985 and the orders dated 08.02.1979 and 04.08.1983 in favour of Shiv Mohan Singh were set aside. 5. While allowing the revision of the petitioner, the matter was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to be decided afresh. The appeal of Shiv Mohan Singh was reconsidered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and was rejected on 19.06.1997. Accordingly, it has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that with regard to Shiv Mohan singh, the matter attained finality and the said disputed land continued to be recorded in the name of petitioner. 6. It has further been stated that another application for correction was filed by Tribhuwan Bahadur Singh which was allowed by order dated 23.02.2013 and accordingly the name of Tribhuwan Bahadur Singh was recorded in place of Mst. Rani. Against the order dated 23.02.2013 respondent Nos. 4 & 5 who claimed that they had purchased the disputed land through Shiv Mohan Singh by a registered sale deed sought to challenge the order dated 23.02.2013. The revision preferred by them was rejected on 25.02.2015 by a detailed order passed by Commissioner, Lucknow, Mandal, Lucknow. 7. Against the order dated 23.02.2013 and 25.02.2015, a writ petition was preferred by respondent Nos. 4 & 5 before this Court being Writ C No. 10002918 of 2015 (Smt. Manju Singh and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.). This Court also had an occasion to examine the entire facts and declined to entertain the writ petition and disposed of it with a liberty to the petitioners to institute regular proceedings for their rights over the property in dispute before the appropriate court / forum. Instead of filing a civil suit for declaration of their rights, respondent Nos. 4 & 5 again moved an application for recall of the order dated 23.02.2013 which has been allowed by means of order dated 28.05.2025. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that firstly respondent Nos. 4 & 5 had duly participated in the proceedings before the authorities below and could not establish their rights in any manner whatsoever and even their revision preferred by them was rejected by the Commissioner, Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow on 25.02.2015. The order further attained finality when the writ petition was not entertained but liberty was granted to them to file a suit for declaration. He has further submitted that even otherwise respondent Nos. 4 & 5 derive their title or interest in the property through Shiv Mohan Singh who himself had contested the matter unsuccessfully and lastly the revision of the petitioner was allowed on 04.10.1985 and even the appeal preferred by Shiv Mohan Singh was rejected on 19.06.1997. Against the order dated 19.06.1997, the matter was never assailed before any higher authority or before the writ court and consequently the matter attained finality and respondent Nos. 4 & 5 claiming their rights through Shiv Mohan Singh cannot claim better rights and title than Shiv Mohan Singh himself. 9. Apart from the above, this Court finds that the petitioner had assailed the order dated 23.02.2013 in the revision which was rejected on 25.02.2015. It seems that in the impugned order respondent Nos. 4 & 5 has not disclosed about the dismissal of the revision dated 25.02.2015 which has occasioned the Sub- Divisional Magistrate to record a finding that they were never heard at any of the proceedings which finding is clearly perverse and contrary to record. Accordingly, this Court finds that even findings recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Unchahar are perverse, once the respondents themselves have approached this Court in writ proceedings and this Court has declined to entertain the writ petition granting them liberty to institute regular proceedings but it was not open for the respondents to move an application for recall of the order dated 23.02.2013. Accordingly, the impugned order is clearly without jurisdiction, illegal and arbitrary and cannot be sustained. In sustained litigation spreading over more than 5 decades the petitioner has been able to establish her rights over the disputed property on the prevision occasion, the litigation was between Shiv Mohan Singh and subsequently it was commenced at the behest of respondent nos. 4 & 5 claiming their rights through Shiv Mohan Singh. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, the fresh proceedings initiated subsequent to the order of the High Court are clearly illegal and arbitrary and cannot be sustained. 11. For the reasons aforesaid. the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.05.2025 is quashed and keeping it open for the respondent nos. 4 & 5 to file a suit for declaration in case they so choose in light of the directions issued by this Court in Writ C No. 10002918 of 2015 (Smt. Manju Singh and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.). (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench