HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 1001897 of 2006 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. 1. Heard Sri Yogendra Trivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vivek Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is owner of the land Gata No.89-kha area 0.29 decimal, situated at Dulhapur Pahari Pargana and Tehsil, District Gonda. The land is a grove land, on which there are 60-65 years old 20 standing trees of mango which were planted by the ancestors of petitioner. The land Management Committee granted lease of the land in question to the respondent Nos.3 and 6 on 28.1.1976. When the Lekhpal came in the village and inspected the land in question, then first time on 17.7.2005, the petitioner came to know that the land has been granted lease in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 6 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate to demarcate the land of Gata No.89. 3. The Lekhpal has mentioned in his report that 20 mango trees are standing on the aforesaid land, but the Land Management Committee has not considered the report of the Lekhpal. 4. The petitioner moved an application under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for cancellation of lease before the respondent No.2 on 3.12.2005, which has been rejected. 5. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the following prayer :- Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vivek Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ram Kumar Cheedi .....Petitioner(s) Addl. Commissioner Judicial And Others .....Respondent(s) "i. issue a writ of certiorari and a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.2.2006 passed by the opposite party no. 1 and order dated 27.12.2005 passed by the opposite party no.2, contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition, by means of which revision has been rejected on the ground of limitation. ii. issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to decide the case on merit. iii. issue a such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed. iv..." 6. The revisional court (respondent No.1) has rejected the revision by the impugned order dated 16.2.2006, inasmuch as vide order dated 27.12.2005, passed by the respondent No.2, the case under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act preferred by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of limitation. 7. The revision as well as case under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act have been rejected on the ground of inordinate delay in approaching the competent court of law and in the writ petition also, there is no sufficient explanation to the delay occasioned in approaching the respondent Nos.1 and 2, therefore, there is no occasion or justification to interfere with the order of the revisional court as well as order passed under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 8. The petitioner has approached the authorities with inordinate delay, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view of reasons recorded above, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. December 8, 2025 Gautam WRIC No. 1001897 of 2006 2 (Irshad Ali,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM TECKCHANDANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench