HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 1072 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Heard Sri Rahul Roshan Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.4 and filed vakalatnama, which is taken on record. 1. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an application under Section 30 of U. P. Revenue Code, 2006 for correction of map was given by the petitioner with regard to the land of gata No.1017 in Village Saraiya Pure Vishen, Tehsil Sadar, District Sultanpur. It is noticed that gata No.1017 Min. is recorded in favour of number of tenure holders in the revenue records. Despite issuance of notice by the District Magistrate on the application of the petitioner no appearance was put in and on the report of the tracer the application of the petitioner was finalized and his application was allowed by means of order dated 18.2.2022 against which on 1.4.2023 one Asgar Ali i.e. opposite party No.4 had filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. In the revision one of the grounds raised by him was that despite the fact that he was the tenure holder of gata No.1017 he was not made a party and the proceedings were conducted ex-parte. 2. The revisional court duly considered the pleadings made by the 3. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditya Tiwari, Deepranjan Pandey, Ravi Awasthi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Aditya Narayan Mohd. Rafeek .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Revenue), Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) petitioner before the District Magistrate and found that though other tenure holders, namely Sher Ali, Sher Mohd., Mohd. Haseeb, Mohd. Raqeeb, Hazrat Ali, Smt. Himayatulla Nisha wife of Ataullah Kha, Mohd. Tahr Khan were made the respondents but the name of the revisionist i.e. Asgar Ali was left out and accordingly he found serious infirmities in the application preferred by the petitioner and also found that the orders impugned before the revisional court i.e. 10.2.2023 suffers from incurable defects of non - joinder of parties and limitation and accordingly remanded the matter back to decide afresh giving opportunity to the petitioner making all necessary persons as opposite parties. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that Asgar Ali was not made an opposite party when the application under Section 30 preferred by him before the District Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the aforesaid order has only submitted that he was not given proper opportunity of hearing before the revisional court and and according to the supplementary affidavit filed by him the case was directed to be listed on 11.3.2026 by means of order dated 6.8.2025 and the order was passed on 6.10.2025 i.e. before the date fixed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the writ petition submitting that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. It is further submitted that even if the contentions of the petitioner is accepted we do not find that any prejudice has been caused to him by above said order especially in light of the fact that once it is admitted that Asgar Ali was made an opposite party in the application preferred by him then the only consequence would be to set aside the order dated 10.2.2023 which has to be decided afresh after making all necessary persons as opposite parties. 5. This Court has gone through the records and also considered the arguments raised by the respective parties. 6. It is noticed that undoubtedly Asgar Ali, the revisionist before the 7. WRIB No. 1072 of 2025 2 Board of Revenue, was also the the tenure holder in gata No.1017 and he was not made a respondent by the petitioner in his application under Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code. On noticing the said fact the revisional court had set aside the order of the District Magistrate and remanded the matter back for consideration afresh after making all the persons as necessary parties. With regard opportunity of hearing, we find that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as no satisfactory explanation has been submitted by the petitioner for excluding the name of the revisionist, namely, Asgar Ali as an opposite party in the proceedings under taken by him under Section 30 then the said act would be fatal to the proceedings under Section 30 in as much as all the persons having the land adjacent to the land of the applicant as a necessary party in as much as any orders passed in favour of the petitioner will affect all the original tenure holders who got contiguous land. In light of the above, specially considering the fact that Asgar Ali was not made a party, no useful purpose will be served in remanding the matter back only for giving opportunity of hearing, especially the fact that no prejudice is cased to the petitioner by remitting the matter back. 8. This Court does not find any ground or interference in the present writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. 9. The District Magistrate shall proceed to consider and decide the application of the petitioner with expedition subject to the petitioner's impleading all the necessary persons as parties in the said proceedings. 10. November 13, 2025 RKM. WRIB No. 1072 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench