HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8994 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Heard Sri Devi Prasad Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 and 2 and Sri Mohan Singh who has accepted notice for respondent No.3. 1. In light of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the the petitioners that the present dispute pertains to gata No.s 3670 and 3674 which were purchased by the petitioner from Kamal Kishore and Srinivas by means of a registered sale deed dated 2.12.2014 who in turn had purchased the land from Nipendra Kumar son of Putti Lal vide registered sale deed dated 9.3.2005. 3. It has been submitted that proceedings under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for cancellation of patta were initiated against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, namely Nipendra Kumar and Jagdish Prasad. The petitioner claiming himself to be the bonafide purchaser of the said land from the patta holder moved an application for impleadment in the said proceedings which has been allowed and he is now participating in the proceedings as a respondent. 4. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devi Prasad Maurya, Sandeep Kumar, Shivendra Singh Suryavans Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Raghvendra Singh And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) District Magistrate, Barabanki And Others .....Respondent(s) In the said proceedings the petitioner had moved an application to decide the issue of limitation as preliminary issue by means of application dated 7.10.2014. The said application has been rejected by means of order dated 7.8.2025 by Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Tehsil Sirauli Gauspur, District Barabanki. While rejecting the said application he has noticed that similar application was given on 23.9.2019, 4.10.2019 and 9.10.2019 which was disposed of by Additional Collector (F & R) Barabanki vide order dated 1.11.2019. He has further noticed that there are already orders for expediting the said proceeding by High Court and accordingly it is in compliance of the order of High Court that he has directed the parties to file written submissions so that the proceedings can be concluded with expedition and in the aforesaid circumstances has rejected the application given by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that application under Section 198 (4) has been filed after considerable delay and the said issue ought to have been decided as a preliminary issue and only on that solitary ground has assailed the validity of the order dated 7.8.2012. 6. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition and submits that the issue of limitation would go to the root of the matter and it also involved the determination of disputed questions of fact and accordingly it can be decided at the final stage. Apart from the above, similar application previously was rejected against which the petitioner has not availed his legal remedy and accordingly the principles of res-judicate would apply to the similar application which has been filed by the petitioner on 7.10. 2014. 7. Considering the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proceedings are pending since 2022 and also that there are directions of this Court to conclude the proceedings with expedition. 8. Apart from the above, the issue pertaining to limitation in initiating 9. WRIC No. 8994 of 2025 2 the proceedings has also been decided by Additional District Magistrate on 1.11.2019 which order has not been assailed and, therefore, has attained finality. Apart from the above, even if the issue has not been finally decided the same can be decided at the time of final determination of the proceedings and will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. 10. Considering the fact that already directions are existing for expeditious disposal by High Court the application preferred by the petitioner at such stage is only to further delaying the proceedings. 11. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 12. Additional Collector (Judicial), Barabanki/opposite party No.2 is directed to conclude the proceedings as per the previous direction issued by this Court. 13. September 22, 2025 RKM. WRIC No. 8994 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench