Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44838 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7294 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt.Nirmala Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Uma Kant Gupta,Anand Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Shri Uma Kant Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 4. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private respondent is dispensed with. 3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has made following reliefs:- "(I) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned orders dated 02.07.2025 and 18.06.2022 passed by respondents no. 2 and 4 as contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to this writ petition. (II) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to c relate disturbance in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question and not to alienate the same to anyone." 4. The dispute in the present case pertains to the mutation of the property, which was registered in the name of Ram Pratap Singh, the husband of the petitioner. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that her husband was owner of land Gata Nos. 426, 550/3.950 hectare, Khata No. 427, 553/0.0380 hectare, Gata No. 556/0.139 hectare, Gata No. 557/0.2020 hectare, Gata No. 558/0.2400 hectare, Gata No. 559/0.2280 hectare and Gata No. 428, 145/1289 area 1.072 hectare, situated at Village Gonamau, Pargana Maurawan, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao. Ram Pratap Singh died in the year 2000 leaving behind two sons, namely, Deepak Singh and Sandeep Singh. Sandeep Singh married to respondent no.5, namely, Smt. Subhashini Singh and Sandeep Singh died on 9.12.2021. After the death of Sandeep Singh an application under Section 33(1) of U.P. Revenue Code was filed by respondent no.5, before the Tehsildar, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao, while the petitioner also moved an application on 8.2.2022 for mutating her name in the revenue record in respect of property of her son late Sandeep Singh. The said dispute was transferred to Naib Tehsildar Hilauili, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao, where the parties had appeared and were contesting the said matter. 6. It is in the midst of the aforesaid proceedings that the respondent no.5 moved another application on 18.6.2022 on Sampurna Samadhan Diwas at Tehsil purwa concealing the fact about pendnecy of the earlier proceedings under Section 33(1) of U.P. Revenue Code and on the same day itself i.e. on 18.6.2022 her application was allowed and her name was directed to be mutated in place of Sandeep Kumar Singh. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, before the Additional Commissioner, (Judicial- II), Lucknow, which has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 02.07.2025. 7. It has been submitted that initially after filing of the said revision an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 28.6.2022, but the said order stands discharged and case was dismissed for want of prosecution. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed on Sampurna Samadhan Diwas on 18.6.2022 is illegal and arbitrary and the said proceedings were not maintainable considering the fact that respondent no.5 had already moved an application, which was pending consideration before the Naib Tehsildar, Hilauli, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao and without disclosing the aforesaid proceedings, had filed a fresh application on which the order was passed on 18.6.2022 without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. The Additional Commissioner, Judicial -II, Lucknow after considering the rival contentions of the parties has rejected the revision of the petitioner only on the ground of maintainability, in as much as, against the order passed under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, the petitioner has efficacious remedy under Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code and accordingly the revision itself was not maintainable. 10. The petitioner at this stage submits that he does not dispute that technical ground on the basis of which the revision stands dismissed. He submits that he may be granted liberty to move a recall application in proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, which was pending before the Naib Tehsildar, Hilauli, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao, in Case No. T20221069020113 (Nirmala Singh Vs. Gaon Sabha), who may be directed to decide the case on merit after hearing all the parties. 11. Accordingly, it was submitted that the present petition may be dismissed as not pressed and liberty be given to move an appropriate application in terms of the impugned order dated 2.7.2025, before Naib Tehsildar, Hilauli, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao for recall of the order as the said proceedings have concluded on non presence of the parties, in default. 12. Accordingly, the liberty is granted to the petitioner to move an appropriate application in the proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, and in case the application is moved within the next two weeks, the Naib Tehsildar shall consider and decide the application within three weeks thereafter, in accordance with law, after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. In case the application for restoration is allowed, the Naib Tehsildar is directed to conclude the pending applications on merits within the further period of three months, in accordance with law. 13. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the petition is dismissed as not pressed. The petitioner will also be at liberty to move an application for interim relief in the said proceedings and in case, such an application is moved, the same shall be considered and decided with expedition within the period of two weeks, if there is no legal impediment, in accordance with law. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Muk Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench