Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46725 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7549 of 2025 Petitioner :- Waseem Khaa Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Bahraich And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Kumar Bachhil Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Shri Himanshu Kumar Bachhil, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State respondents no.1 and 2. 2. In light of the proposed order, notice to the private respondent no.3 is hereby dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that with regard to the land situated at Gata No. 222, area 1.396 hectares and Gata No.225, area 2.669 hectares situated at Village Rajapur Girant, Pargana Nanpara, Tehsil Mihipurva, District Bahraich. It has been stated that the same was recorded in the name of Shakila Begum daughter of Abdul Hamid, who died leaving behind two daughters while the petitioner is son of one of the daughters. It is on the basis of the application given by the petitioner that by means of order dated 10.09.2024, the said land was mutated in favour of the petitioner as he was only surviving legal heir of the deceased tenure holder. Subsequently, an application for recall has been preferred by opposite party no.3 before the Tehsildar, on which the order dated 25.06.2025 has been passed staying the operation of the order dated 10.09.2024 and notices have been issued to the petitioner. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is without jurisdiction, illegal and arbitrary and therefore has been challenged in the present writ petition. 4. Apart from the above, there is no dispute that the petitioner had already put in appearance on the application for recall and filed his objections before the Tehsildar taking all the pleas with regard to the objections preferred by opposite party on the recall application preferred by opposite party no.3. 5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that once the petitioner has already filed his application to the application for recall preferred by opposite party no.3, then for the same reasons and grounds, the writ petition would not be maintainable. The petitioner should have awaited the decision on the objections filed by him before rushing to file the present writ petition. 6. Apart from the above, I find that only the application for recall has been entertained and the previous order dated 10.06.2024 has been stayed. 7. It is open for the petitioner to participate in the proceeding before the Tehsildar where he would have full opportunity to adduce all the evidences and oppose the application preferred by opposite party no.3. 8. Accordingly, at this stage, this Court in exercise of discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not entertain in such a petition where the entire dispute is pending before the competent authority and the matter is yet to be decided. 9. For the reasons given aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. However, It is expected that the Tehsildar will conclude the proceeding with expedition, say within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceeding before the Tehsildar. [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 11.8.2025 KR Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench