HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 173 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. C. M. Application No.1 of 2025 for condonation of delay. 1. The cause shown is sufficient. 2. The application is allowed. Delay is condoned. Order on memo Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the review- applicant. 1. By means of the present review application the applicant has sought review of the judgment and order passed by this Court on 1.9.2025 in writ B No.121 of 2025 where this Court while considering the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner had noticed that on the behest of the petitioners their revision was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Additional District Magistrate, (Judicial) for consideration of the matter under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code and directions were issued to pass fresh orders only after clearly examining the infirmities made in allotment of the pattas individually. It is in aforesaid circumstances that his Court further recorded that till date no adverse orders have been passed in the remand proceedings and, therefore, there was no reason for this Court to interfere in the said matter as it did not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the statutory authorities including the Board of Revenue. 2. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhirendra Kumar Mishra, Rajesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sandeep Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Opposite Party(s) Learned counsel for the petitioner has only submitted that there is likelihood of a compromise being entered into between the two sections of the disputing private respondents and accordingly for this reason the impugned judgment and order deserves to be reviewed. 3. Considering the arguments of the petitioner, it is noticed that the allegations against the petitioner are with regard to illegally allotting the gaon sabha land and pattas were granted to him and it is only on account of certain complaints having been received against the petitioner that the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act were initiated and the matter has been pending since 2013 and presently as per the revisional order the matter is pending at the stage of Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) who has to comply with the revisional order and pass fresh orders. 4. At this stage, even if the compromise is entered into between the complainant and the petitioner the same would have no bearing upon the proceedings under Section 198 (4) and the authorities will be under a mandate to proceed in accordance with law and consider whether the pattas were granted irregularly and in violation of the statutory provisions. In light of the above, the compromise between the private parties cannot be a ground for interfering in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act on account of illegality committed by the authorities in allotment of the pattas. 5. No other ground was urged and accordingly this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record necessitating review of the impugned judgment and order dated 1.9.2025. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, the review application is rejected. 7. October 27, 2025 RKM. CMRAD No. 173 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench