HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11404 of 2025 Court No. - 22 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Rahul Kr. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neel Padm Dhar, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The instant petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 17.9.2025 passed by District Magistrate, Bahraich in case No. 882 of 2025, computerized No. D202508150000882, under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code and the impugned orders dated 8.7.2025 and 15.5.2025 passed by Tehsildar in Case No. 5017 of 2025, computerized case No. T202508150505017 under Section 209(h) and Case No. RST/3802/2021, computerized no. T202108150503802 under Section 67(5) of Code, 2006. 3. The facts giving rise to the present controversy are that the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code was initiated against the petitioner which culminated into the order dated 15.5.2025, directing the petitioner to be evicted from Gata No. 330, area 0.012 hectare which is chak marg and a fine of Rs. 5000/- was also imposed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a recall application which was dismissed on 8.7.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code on 4.8.2025 which is delayed by about 2 months and 20 days from the date of revisional order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code. Along with the memo of appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed, seeking condonation of delay, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the appellant on 17.9.2025 on the ground of laches. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rahul Kumar Shukla, Mohit Singh, Shivam Srivastava, Shivani Maskara Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Layak Ram @ Kunne .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the appellate court is absolutely erroneous as the appellant has given proper explanation for delay. Therefore, the order of appellate court deserves to be set aside and the matter may be heard on merit. 5. Learned Standing Counsel though opposed the prayer, he could not dispute the fact that the appeal was filed by the petitioner within 30 days from the date of rejection of the recall application of the petitioner. 6. After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that initially the order under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code was passed on 15.5.2025 against which the recall application was also rejected on 8.7.2025. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred within 30 days of the rejection of the recall application along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but the appellate court though considered the same, rejected the appeal of the petitioner being time barred. Therefore, the order impugned is absolutely erroneous which deserves to be set aside. As the appeal was dismissed on the ground of laches, therefore, the present petition is being disposed of finally with the consent of both parties. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 17.9.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Bahraich in Case No. 882 of 2025 deserves to be quashed. Hence, accordingly, set aside. 8. The delay in filing the appeal against orders dated 15.5.2025 and 8.7.2025 is hereby condoned and the appellate court/District Magistrate, Bahraich is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner against order dated 15.5.2025 strictly on merit, without considering the delay and the same shall be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receiving a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of. December 2, 2025 Vandana WRIC No. 11404 of 2025 2 (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench