Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4476 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10264 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt. Prabhawati And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Singh,Radhey Shyam Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kalika Prasad Pandey,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3 has been accepted by the ofÏce of learned Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Mohan Singh has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.4. Shri Kalika Prasad Pandey, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of private respondent no.5. Shri Kalika Prasad Pandey had initially filed his caveat on behalf of private respondent no.6. Thereafter he filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of remaining respondents except respondent nos.6 and 13. Today, he has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.13 and as such now all the contesting respondents are duly represented. It has also been pointed out that the respondent no.14 is a proforma party as he is the real brother of petitioner no.2 and since he was not available,hence he has been impleaded as a proforma respondent. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The primary submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that while assailing the order dated 25.9.2017 passed by respondent no.3 in proceedings emanating under Section 28 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against which the petitioners filed a revision before respondent no.2 which has also been dismissed on 13.9.2024. The submission is that the proceedings were emanated at the behest of the private respondents as indicated in the copy of the petition, which has been brought on record as Annexure No.4 wherein the present petitioners were not impleaded as a party. The court concerned while passing the impugned order dated 25.9.2017, noticed that notices to the affected tenure holders who have been impleaded as a party and notices were sent but did not appear. Thus, the court at the first instance, proceeded in absence of the said parties. It is urged that when the affected the parties were not made a party including the petitioners, thus the reference made that notices were issued to the affected parties, is patently erroneous. It is further submitted that being aggrieved against the order dated 25.9.2017, the petitioners preferred a revision and a copy of the memo of revision has been brought on record as Annexure No.6. It is stated that in the memo of revision specifically in paragraphs 3 and 4, it was stated by the petitioners that neither they have been impleaded as a party nor any notice was received and neither they were granted any opportunity to contest the proceedings and as such the entire proceedings were ex parte. It is stated that despite a categorical objection and submissions made by the petitioners, the revisional court has not considered the aforesaid aspect and by means of order dated 13.9.2024, rejected the revision. It is thus urged that the impugned orders are patently behind the back of the petitioners and suffer from the vice of arbitrariness as no opportunity of hearing was granted and this fact being evident from the record. Shri Kalika Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the private respondents attempted to support the impugned orders, however could not dispute the fact that the petitioners were neither made parties nor they were heard and even the revisional court despite the objections being raised, did not consider this aspect and dismissed the revision. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, apparently where the petitioners have not been heard, the impugned orders are patently ex parte qua them and as such the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 25.9.2017 and 13.98.2024 are hereby set aside. The proceedings under Section 28 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 shall stand restored before the court of respondent no.3 where the private respondents shall move an appropriate application to implead the petitioners. Once the petitioners are impleaded, they shall be granted an opportunity to file their objections and after affording full opportunity to parties concerned to lead evidence and make their submissions, shall decide the matter afresh. It is made clear that this court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the impugned orders have been set aside, primarily on the ground of being passed against the principles of natural justice. It is further clarified that in case if the petitioners seek to misuse the liberty by seeking unnecessary adjournments, the court concerned shall be well within its rights to proceed in accordance with law, so that the entire matter can be decided on merits preferably within a period of three months. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Shukla Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench