Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45924 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 715 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shriram Pandey And Others Respondent :- Board Of Revenue Thru. Chairman, U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Nitin Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 while notice on behalf of respondent No.4 - Gaon Sabha has been accepted by Sri Pankaj Gupta. 2. The supplementary affidavit filed today in the Court is taken on record. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the present dispute pertains to plot No.458, 460/1 and 460/2 total area 8.79 acres situated in Village Pikaura, Pargana and Tehsil Mankapur, District Gonda which was recorded in the name of Ram Teerath (father of the petitioner No.s 1 and 2 and grand father of petitioner No.3). It has further been submitted that plot No.s 458/2 area 1.23 acres, plot No.460/1 are 31 decimal, plot No 458/13 and 458/14 were excluded from the consolidation proceedings but due to error new plot No.s 104/384 area 0.26 decimals was recorded as Naveen Parti and new plot No.103 area 1.37 acres were recorded as road. 4. After conclusion of the consolidation proceedings application for correction was moved by the petitioners under Section 33/39 of Land Revenue Act. The said application was allowed vide order dated 7.12.2007 by Sub Divisional Officer. The State filed a revision before Additional Commissioner (Administration) under Section 219 of Land revenue Act, 1901. In the said revision it was stated that the orders passed during the consolidation operations could not be corrected after conclusion of the consolidation proceedings. With regard to delay it was stated that the State was not aware of the orders passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate and, therefore, sought condonation of delay. 5. Additional Commissioner (Administration) has condoned the delay without assigning any reason while, on the other hand, it also recorded the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner with regard to maintainability of the said revision. It was stated that no resolution was passed by the gaon sabha to file the said revison nor has government Advocate (Revenue ) been authorized to file the said revision. It is further stated that the detailed procedure in this regard has been prescribed in the Gram Sabha Manual in para 101 and there is clear violation of the aforesaid provisions and, therefore, the said revision was not maintainable. 6. The order was passed by the revisional authority i.e. Additional Commissioner (Administration) but despite noticing the preliminary objection he has not addressed the said preliminary objection and allowed the revision without deciding the question pertaining to maintainability of the said revision. 7. Sri Pankaj Gupta appearing for the Gaon Sabha also does not dispute this proposition of law and further we find that the revisional authority has dismissed the revision only considering the fact that the matter has been remanded back or deciding afresh before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. 8. Considering the rival submissions, it is noticed that if preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner before Additional Commissioner (Administration) then he was mandated to consider and decide the said dispute and merely noticing the objections does not suffice the test of reasonableness and fairness. It was his duty to have duly considered and mentioned reasons either to accept the said objections or to reject the same but not considering or returning any finding with regard to any issue which is raised before a judicial authority would render the entire order arbitrary and illegal and liable to be dismissed the same having been passed without application of mind. 9. Accordingly, without delving into factual aspects of the controversy, this Court is of the considered view that manifest error and illegality has been committed by the revisional authority while passing the order dated 10.2.2025 and the same having not been rectified by the Board of Revenue the said order dated 11.3.2025 also is liable to be set aside on the same count. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Orders dated 10.2.2025 and 11.3.2025 are set aside. 11. The matter is remanded back to the Additional Commissioner (Administration), IInd, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law. 12. It is made clear that the revisional authority while applying its mind shall duly consider all the issues raised before it and decide the same after giving reasons and full opportunity to the parties before it. 13. Let the said fresh exercise be carried out with expedition, say within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned. 14. The parties undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before the revisional authority. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 7.8.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench