HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 1013 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Shri Hari Anuj Bahadur Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA for the State- respondents no. 1 to 4. 2. In the light of the proposed order, notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 06.08.2025, Annexure No.1, passed by the Hon'ble Member, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow in Revision No. 2484 of 2025 (Kripa Shanker Yadav Vs. Ajay Singh and others). ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus Remanding the matter back to the Hon'ble Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow with a direction to decide the revision afresh on merits in so far as it relates to the challenge of the order of Tehsildar, Sadar, District Unnao dated 13.10.2023." 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings under Sections 34/35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, were initiated by the respondents no. 5 and 6 on the notices issued by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Unnao and the petitioner has put in appearance and filed objection. During pendency of the aforesaid Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Hari Anuj Bahadur Sinha, Akash Dikshit, Maneesh Nigam Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Kripa Shankar Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) proceedings before the Tehsildar, the petitioner has moved an application for modification in his objection, which was rejected by means of the order dated 13.10.2023. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially as legally advised, an appeal was filed before the S.D.M. Unnao which was dismissed only on the ground of maintainability as the order dated 13.10.2023 was interlocutory order and does not decide the lis finally. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that undoubtedly he does not dispute the order of S.D.M dated 30.04.2025 and submits that under wrong legal advice, the aforesaid appeal was filed. Subsequently a revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue, assailing both the orders dated 30.4.2025 passed in Appeal as well as the initial order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Tehsildar rejecting the application for amendment, the objection filed by the petitioner dated 13.10.2023. The Board of Revenue by means of the impugned order dated 5.8.2025, has decided only the validity of the order dated 30.4.2025 and rejected the revision of the petitioner. 7. The grievances raised by the petitioner in the present case is that in the revision preferred by the petitioner under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, the petitioner has assailed the validity of both the orders dated 13.10.2023 and 30.4.2025, but only the validity of the order dated 30.4.2025 has been decided keeping the matter regarding the order dated 13.10.2023 pending. 8. It is stated that the matter deserves to be remanded to the Board of Revenue for deciding the matter afresh with regard to the validity of the order dated 13.10.2023. 9. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the petition and submitted that it is possible that the petitioner did not press the validity of the order passed 13.10.2023 before the Board of Revenue, consequently no finding has been returned with regard to the validity of the order dated 13.10.2023. 10. Be that as it may once multiple orders have been assailed in the single WRIB No. 1013 of 2025 2 revision then the judgement has to be pronounced with regard to the validity of both the orders. It may be that in single revision both the orders may not be assailable, but in any view of the matter a reasoned order has to be passed by the Board of Revenue dealing with the claim and the prayer made in the revision. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that he does not dispute the validity of the judgment dated 6.8.2025 to the extent that it has upheld the order dated 30.4.2025, which in any view of the matter, as the counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that the appeal itself may not be maintainable before the S.D.M. 12. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to interfere in the order dated 6.8.2025 but liberty is granted to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the Board of Revenue to decide the claim made by him in Revision No. 2484 of 2025/ Unnao with regard to the order dated 13.10.2023. In case any such application is made by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue, the same shall be considered and decided with expedition. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of. October 30, 2025 Muk WRIB No. 1013 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench