Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49358 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7815 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Krishnavati Respondent :- Additional Commissioner (Administration) -Ist, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Vijay Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Shri Vijay Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent no. 1 to 4 and Shri Vikram Dutt Pandey holding brief of Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent no.5. 2. In light of the proposed order, notice to the private respondents no. 6 to 9 is dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had purchased 1 acre of land of Gata No. 963 / 6.431 acre, from recorded tenure holder Shri Ram son of Bagghan, resident of Baghia, Tehsil Mihipurwa, District Bahraich, on 20/08/1991. Thereafter, the petitioner had moved an application under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, and on the basis of the registered sale deed, the application of the petitioner was rejected and the land was stood vested in the Gaon Sabha, by means of order dated 19/05/2000 passed by the Tehsildar. It seems that during the said period, the land purchased by the petitioner was also allotted in favour of private respondents and nd accordingly, the petitioner had moved an application under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code for cancellation of the said allotment. 4. Considering the fact that the petitioner was a tenure holder having purchased the said land through registered sale deed. The application of the petitioner was partially allowed by means of order dated 29/01/2024, and the allotment made in favour of the private respondents was set aside, but the land was declared to be "Navin Parti" and stood vested in the Gaon Sabha. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 29/01/2024, had preferred an appeal under Section 207 of the UP Revenue Code before the Additional Commissioner (Administration)- 1st, Devipatan Mandal, Gonda, and the same has been rejected only on the ground of limitation, by means of order dated 13/05/2025. The petitioner has assailed both the orders, namely, 19/01/2024 and 13/05/2025, in the present petition. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) has been rejected only on the ground of limitation. He further submits that, in fact, the said appeal was filed under wrong legal advice given to the petitioner inasmuch as against an order passed under 128 of the UP Revenue Code, no appeal is prescribed in the third scheduled of the UP Revenue Code and consequently, only a revision was maintainable under Section 210 of the UP Revenue Code before the same authority. He submits that even otherwise the delay in filing of the appeal is of 58 days which had been duly explained by the petitioner in his application for condonation of delay but the same was not correctly considered, and the appeal has been rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, opposed the petition but does not dispute aforesaid facts. 7. Considering the rival contentions and specially that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that against the order dated 29/01/2024 passed by the Additional Collector/ Chief Revenue Officer, Bahraich in exercise of power under Section 128 of the UP Revenue Code, only a revision under Section 210 of the UP Revenue Code was maintainable that too before the Additional Commissioner and the petitioner had wrongly exercised the remedy of appeal under section 207 of the UP Revenue Code. Accordingly, there is a consensus at the bar that the petitioner could have only preferred a revision under Section 210 of the UP Revenue Code. 8. In light of the above, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a revision under section 210 of the UP Revenue Code against the order dated 29-01-2024 before competent authority, who will proceed to decide the revision without being influenced by order dated 29.01.2024. 9. It is made clear that before the revisional authority, the petitioner would be at liberty to move an application for condonation of delay and the same shall be considered on its own facts and merit in accordance with law. 10. In light of the above, the petition is partly allowed. [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 22.8.2025 KR Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench