HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9343 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Shri Vivek Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents no. 1 to 4 and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.5. 2. The dispute raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition pertains to succession of the property, which was recorded in the name of Hasan Ali. It is stated that Hasan Ali, who died in the year 1984 had two daughters, namely, Munni and Noorjahan. The petitioner claims that his mother is the daughter of Munni, who had married Lalla. He has further submitted that his mother Munni predeceased Hasan Ali. 3. After the death of Hasan Ali, on the basis of the report submitted by the Lekhpal that Hasan Ali had died issue-less without any heir. The property stood vested in the provision of Section 194 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R., Act. The order was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 22.1.1993. The petitioner had filed an application for restoration before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahmoodabad, which was rejected on 18.8.2020 for want of prosecution and again restoration application was filed, which was rejected on 6.4.2021 on merits. It is the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, which was assailed by the petitioner in revision before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial)-I, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sudhaker Prakash, Vivek Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Ramjan Ali .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. The petitioner had contended that in fact he is the legal heir of Hasan Ali, who was his maternal grandfather. He further submitted that after the death of Hasan Ali he is possession of the disputed property and accordingly prays for setting aside the order dated 22.1.1993 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahmoodabad. Before the revision, number of affidavits of villagers were filed, who had stated that as per their knowledge the petitioner was the son of Munni, who was the daughter of Hasan Ali. There was certain lacuna in the affidavits, in as much as, in some affidavits the date was not mentioned and apart from these affidavits no other documents were adduced in the revision to establish his claim with regard to the property of Hasan Ali and accordingly the revision was rejected, while the revisional authority has given categorical findings that there is no cogent proof or evidence led by the petitioner, from which, it could be established that the petitioner is the maternal grand son of Hasan Ali. 5. Apart from the above, it is in the present petition the petitioner has disclosed that he has also filed a Regular Suit in this regard in another Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, which was dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 27.7.2021. The said suits were filed some times in the year 2016 and was numbered as Suit No. 22 of 2016. Counsel for the petitioner has informed that application for restoration was also rejected. 6. It seems that the petitioner has deliberately not disclose that he has filed the Suit in 2016, which has been rejected, while on the other hand though he says that he has challenged the rejection of the recall application dated 6.4.2021 before the Additional Commissioner but apart from the said order he has also challenged the order dated 22.1.1993 and accordingly there was clearly delay of more than 18 years in filing the said revision. 7. Undoubtedly, the petitioner was aware of the dispute and also the order dated 22.1.1993, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, by which the disputed land stood vested with the State Government and has filed a Suit in 2016, which was dismissed in the year 2021. I do not find any explanation for the delay from 1993 to 2021 when the revision was filed WRIC No. 9343 of 2025 2 despite the fact that the petitioner was aware of the order of the S.D.M. 2016 itself. 8. Accordingly, I find that the revision of the petitioner was hopelessly barred by time and also I find that there was no cogent reason with regard to explanation of delay. This Court is also not satisfied with the contention that the petitioner was in possession of the land since 1984 i.e. from the death of maternal grand father. 9. It is for the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 7.5.2025, the petition being devoid of merits is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in case the petitioner can revive his suit proceedings, liberty is granted to him to proceed in accordance with law, in this regard. October 7, 2025 Muk WRIC No. 9343 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench