Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5101 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7768 of 2024 Petitioner :- Shiv Shankar And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Vatsa Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 10.7.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow in Revision No.202310000001294 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners was rejected afÏrming the order dated 15.4.2023 passed by the S.D.M., Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow, as a consequence the initial order dated 25.6.2022 was also afÏrmed. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent State initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006( hereinafter referred as "Code of 2006"). It is urged that no notice was received by the petitioners and ex parte order dated 25.6.2022 came to be passed. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioners moved an application for recall on 27.7.2022 and the said application for restoration was rejected by means of the order dated 15.4.2023 on the ground that the order dated 25.6.2022 was passed on merits and did not require any interference. It is urged that the said orders were challenged before the revisional court and the revisional court has also not considered that neither any notice was issued nor was served and yet the impugned order has been passed and the petitioner having attempted to move an application for recall, the same has been rejected on insufÏcient ground. Accordingly, the impugned orders are bad. 5. The court has required the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions by means of the order dated 10.9.2024, however, the written instructions which was provided, was not clear and the court had to pass the order on 24.1.2025, which reads as under :- "Learned counsel for the State submits that he may be granted a day's time that proper instructions can be sought including the record can be verified to answer the query of the Court. Having considered the aforesaid request, this Court finds that by means of order dated 10.09.2024, the State was required to answer well explicitly as to how and when notices were issued to the petitioners and how they were served despite passage of three months. This basic simple query could not be answered for which the State has to seek time. This action of the State is not appreciable as if indicates laxcity in compliance with the order and provide assistance to the Court. Be that as it may, list this matter on 27th of January, 2025, as fresh. In case if proper instructions are not provided answering the query of the Court as indicated in the order dated 10.09.204, the Court shall contemplate pass an order." 6. Today, again learned Standing Counsel has provided copy of the written instructions dated 25.1.2025 under the signatures of S.D.M., Mohanlalganj, Lucknow wherein in paragraph 2, it has been clearly stated that the notice was only issued to Smt.Maika, Shri Shiv Shankar, Shri Vikram, Shri Raj Kumar, Shri Umesh Kumar, Shri Shubham and Km. Shanti. Once in the aforesaid instructions, it has clearly been indicated by the S.D.M., Mohanlalganj, Lucknow that no notice was issued to the petitioners, apparently rejecting the application for recall by means of the order dated 15.4.2023 ostracizing to be erroneous and appears to be against the material available on record. It also appears that while passing order dated 15.4.2023, the S.D.M. concerned did not even apply his mind to the facts which were averred in the application for recall nor the record available with him. Had he seen the record, he would have known that the notices were not issued which has been clear in light of the instructions given by the S.D.M. under his signatures which have been referred hereinabove. 7. In this view, the order dated 25.6.2022 was an order passed behind back of the petitioner and the same could not have been sustained. This aspect has also not been considered by the revisional court which also suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and accordingly, the orders dated 25.6.2022, 15.4.2023 as well as 10.7.2024 are liable to be quashed and are accordingly set aside. The proceedings shall stand restored on the board of respondent no.4 where the parties shall appear on 24.2.2025. 8. The S.D.M. concerned after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournments, shall consider and decide the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of 2006, on merits, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date when the parties appear before the S.D.M. concerned. 9. It is made clear that the court has not examined the case on merits as no notice was issued and the impugned orders have been set aside on the ground that it violates the principles of natural justice as no notice was issued. 10. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Shukla Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench