HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 814 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Shri Amit Bhardwaj, holding brief of Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel on behalf of respondent no.4. 2. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was given a patta on 30/06/1997 with regard to land situated at Gata No.103 M / 56, area 0.809 hectare, situated at Village Jamhaura, Pargana Bhood, Tehsil Gola, District Lakhimpur Kheri. It has been submitted that within a period of two years from the date of allotment, but complaints were made against said allotment. Due to which, notices were issued to all the persons, who had been given the pattas. Appearance was also put on behalf of the petitioner before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Lakhimpur Kheri. But it seems that further no one appeared to defend the case of the petitioner, and consequently, by means of the order dated 24/03/2007, the patta was cancelled. While passing the order dated 24/03/2007, the Additional District Magistrate had recorded the fact that at the time of allotment, the petitioner was a minor, and in the proceedings for cancellation, the notice had been duly served upon the petitioner, who has put an appearance but yet not filed any evidence or any objection. Due to which, there was no ground except to entertain the objections filed against the allotment of patta, and accordingly, proceeded Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajaiy Kumar Mishra, Kapil Dev Chaubey, Sanjay Chaubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Vinod Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) to cancel the patta made in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for recall after a period of 15 years. The application was also rejected by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Lakhimpur Kheri by order dated 27/06/2025. While rejecting the application for recall, it was noticed that the petitioner was duly served during the proceedings for cancellation and the petitioner had appeared in the said proceedings but did not file any objection against the notice issued to him, and it is only after the period 15 years, the application for recall has been made. He further found that the ground for delay has not been adequately explained, and neither the date of death of the parents of the petitioner or the illness from which they were suffering, was disclosed nor any evidence was filed in this regard, and consequently, he rejected the application for recall. 3. Similarly, the revision filed by the petitioner against the rejection of his application for recall, it was also rejected on 16/07/2025, and in the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged all the orders dated 24/03/2007, 27/06/2025, and 16/07/2025. Assailing the aforesaid orders, counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in fact, he was a major on the date when the allotment was made. Apart from the above, the main issue, which has to be considered is with regard to the delay in filing the application for restoration. Though the petitioner has stated that both parents were suffering from certain illnesses, due to which he could not file the application for restoration within the prescribed period. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) has directly come to a conclusion that the petitioner had neither filed any documents nor provided a date of death of his parents so as to consider whether the reasons stated by him were correct or not. In absence of any material, no findings could be returned in favour of the petitioner with regard to the condonation of the delay. The nature of illness was also not disclosed and no documents were annexed in support of his contention. 4. This court is of the considered view that in all the proceedings, the petitioner has not filed any material in support of his application for condonation of delay but only filed written application where he stated that delay was occasioned on account of the illness of his parents, and WRIB No. 814 of 2025 2 then, subsequent death but the petitioner could not move the appropriate application for recall within time prescribed. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders where they have declined to condone the delay. Needless to say, the party is required to adduce adequate and sufficient material and evidence to show that he could not approach the authority below within the prescribed time and it is on subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned that the delay is likely to be condoned in exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner has failed to file any document or material which may indicate either the illness of his parents or the disease they were suffering from, or the reason the date of death, in absence of any of the material, the delay as sought by the petitioner could not have been condoned. Accordingly, there is no ground for interference in the impugned orders. 6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. August 25, 2025 KR WRIB No. 814 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench