HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8133 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Shri Rakesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent numbers 1 and 2. 2. In view of the proposed order, notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the present dispute pertains to the property of Baiju who was the owner in possession of land situated at Plot No. 261-Ba/ 0-14-10 hectare, and Plot No. 335/1- 2-11, total area 1-19-13, situated at Village Masoodpur, Pargana and Tehsil Fatehpur, District Barabanki. It has been submitted that the property of Baiju was succeeded by his daughter-in-law, Badki, who was murdered and was issueless on the date of her death. The property was thereafter succeeded by Jadurai, daughter of Baiju and sister of Ram Lal. The case of the opposite party is that Ram Karan is the father of opposite parties no.5 and 6, Ram Chander, got a sale deed in their favour executed by Smt. Badki, showing her to be the widow of Ram Lal and wife of Baiju. 4. On coming to know of the aforesaid sale deed, Smt. Badki herself filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed before the Munsif, Barabanki. The said suit was decreed on 13-12-1988, against which private respondents Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Pratap Singh, Akhilendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Lalloo And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya And Others .....Respondent(s) had filed an appeal, which also was rejected on 10/02/2003 by the Additional District Judge, Barabanki. 5. On the other hand, application for mutation was given on behalf of the petitioner in light of the fact that, in the meanwhile, the private respondents, who were the purchasers as per the sale deed, had got their names recorded in the revenue records on the basis of the said sale deed by the order of the Tehsildar dated 25/06/1982. Against the order for mutation, an appeal was filed by Smt. Jadurai, which was allowed on the ground that the sale deed has been found to be forged by the civil court of competent jurisdiction, and accordingly the order of mutation dated 25- 06-1982 cannot stand against the order dated 13-03-1991, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. An application for recall was moved by the private respondents, and the restoration application was allowed, and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate was recalled by order dated 31-05-1995. At this point of time that Smt. Jadurai had died, and was substituted by the petitioner, who filed a revision against the order dated 31/05/1995, under Section 218 of the Land Revenue Act, which revision was dismissed in default on 25-02-2009 and the restoration application has also been rejected, and restoration was dismissed in default on 04.04.2018. Another application for restoration was moved along with application for condonation of delay which has also been rejected on 15/04/2025. It is the aforesaid orders have been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. 6. Considering the fact of the case, I find that undoubtedly the sale deed has been canceled by the Munsif Magistrate by the order dated 10/02/2003 and even the appeal against the said order has been rejected by the Additional District Judge, and the said order has attained finality. The said fact has been duly noted and recognized by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate while passing the order dated 31.05.1995. In the said order, no reasons have been given for recalling the order dated 13/03/1991 by means of order dated 31.05.1995. But in any view of the matter, the application for restoration preferred by the respondents is pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the order dated 31/5/1995 was assailed by the petitioner further, before the appellate authority and the revisional authority. WRIC No. 8133 of 2025 2 7. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the recall application preferred by the respondents which is pending before the Pargana Adhikari, Fatehpur, Barabanki deserves to be decided as the other proceedings, which are offshoot of the said proceedings, have only prolonged the said litigation unnecessarily. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner also consents that it is the application of the respondents, which is pending before Pargana Adhikari, Fatehpur, Barabanki deserves to be decided, and in the aforesaid circumstances, he does not wish to press the revision preferred by him before the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya. 9. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the orders dated 15/04/2025 and 04/04/2018 are set aside. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move an application for withdrawal of the revision preferred by him before the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya. In case, the said application is made within next 10 days, he shall pass appropriate orders within a week thereafter, withdrawing the revision preferred by the petitioner. Once the revision is withdrawn, the Pragana Adhikari, Fatehpur, Barabanki is directed to decide the recall application in Case No.124/74/47/119/37, Jadurai versus Ram Karan and others, under Section 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Act with expedition, say within three months from the date of withdrawal of the revision by the petitioners and submission of the certified copy of order before him and he shall decide the said matter, taking into consideration the orders passed in suit proceedings dated 13.12.2018 as well as rejection of the appeal dated 10.02.2003 and also give full opportunity of hearing to all the parties before him 10. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is allowed. September 1, 2025 KR WRIC No. 8133 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench