HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 1056 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Mohd. Talib Khan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5. 2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. Grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is with regard to order dated 21.04.2025, passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow as well as order dated 15.06.2025, passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil - Salempur, District - Deoria. 4. The dispute raised by the petitioner in the resent writ petition is with regard to the mutation proceedings which were initiated by the father-in- law of petitioner namely Nohore S/o Mallu for the land situated at Gata No. 33/1Min, area 0.014 hectares, which has been vested in the petitioner by means of registered sale deed dated 09.08.2007. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated at the behest of father-in-law of petitioner namely Nihore and on the basis of compromise/family settlement the land came to be recorded in the name of petitioner by order dated 28.03.2007. Subsequently, an Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Smt. Indu Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) application for recall was moved which was allowed by means of order dated 15.06.2016, where the settlement was doubted and previous order dated 28.03.2007 was set aside and the matter was to be decided again on merits. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 15.06.2016, preferred revision before the Board of Revenue which has been rejected on 21.04.2025, after noticing that the matter is yet to be decided on merit by the Tehsildar where the petitioner would have full opportunity of being heard. 7. Before this Court the petitioner has assailed the validity of both the orders dated 15.06.2016 and 21.04.2025. The only ground raised by the petitioner is that in the previous proceedings the petitioner was not heard and only prays that he may be beard before proceedings are concluded by the Tehsildar. 8. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition and submits that the matter has been remanded and restored to the file of Tehsildar where proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 would be decided fresh after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all the other parties. 9. Accordingly, in the light of above, this Court is of the view that no interference is required in the present case, specially looking into the fact that controversy is yet to be decided by the Tehsildar fresh as per order dated 15.06.2016, which has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 21.04.2025. 10. This Court do not find any ground for interference specially on account of the fact that this Court finds that cogent reasons have been indicated by the Tehsildar for recalling the previous order after noticing that the agreement/compromise had not been proved at the time of passing of order dated 23.03.2007. 11. However, it is made clear that the Tehsildar shall proceed to consider and decide the matter expeditiously, say within four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, after giving opportunity of WRIB No. 1056 of 2025 2 hearing to all the parties including the petitioner. 12. In the light of above, the writ petition stands disposed of. November 4, 2025 A. Verma WRIB No. 1056 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench