HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9826 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of the respondents no.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Ajey Singh, learned counsel has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the private respondents no.4 and 5 and the same is taken on record. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the respondent no.3 whereby preliminary objections raised by the petitioners was rejected and the matter has been fixed for hearing on the application for recall of the order dated 01.05.2018. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the proceedings were initiated under section 54 of U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 which came to be decided in favour of the present petitioners by means of order dated 01.05.2018, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure no.2. 4. Thereafter the private respondents by means of an application dated 04.09.2020 sought to be recalled of the ex parte order dated 01.05.2018. The present petitioners have moved preliminary objections before the respondent no.3 to state that an authority i.e. the respondent no.3 did not have the power to recall the order dated 01.05.2018. 5. It was also sought to be urged that the application dated 04.09.2020 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Akshaya Kumar Singh And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) was belated and for the said reason also the authority did not possess jurisdiction to entertain the same. However, after hearing the parties concerned, the respondent no.3 rejected the contention and by means of order dated 19.09.2025 certain applications for impleadment as well as the preliminary objections were rejected by a composite order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his submission only in so far as the rejection of the preliminary objections are concerned and it is urged that the authority did not have the power to recall hence the rejection of the preliminary objections is bad in the eyes of law. 7. Shri Ajey Singh, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents no.4 and 5 has urged that the order passed by the respondent no.3 on 01.05.2018 was admittedly ex parte and application for recall of the said order has been and there is no provision of law by which the right of the authority is curtailed to entertain an application for recall especially when the order is ex parte. 8. It is further urged that in the given facts and circumstances the application for recall is yet to be considered on its own merit where the petitioners have right of raising objections and in such interlocutory stage the instant petition is nothing but an attempt to stall the proceedings pending before the respondent no.3. 9. It has also been pointed out that the private respondent nos.4 and 5 had to file a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India bearing No.4873 of 2025 wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of order dated 14.08.2025 had issued a direction for the respondent no.3 to conclude the proceedings after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned as expeditiously. It is in the aforesaid backdrop where proceedings are moving ahead the petitioners have filed the instant petition to stroll the proceedings which may not be in the interest of justice. 10. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record. 11. Apparently, proceedings were initiated under section 54 of the U.P. WRIC No. 9826 of 2025 2 Land Revenue Act 1901. It is submitted that the proceedings came to be decided by an ex parte order dated 01.05.2018. There is no statutory bar for authority to recall its ex parte order, hence to that extent the preliminary objection which has been rejected by the respondent no.3 cannot be said to be bad in the eyes of law. The facts still remain that the application for recall also seeks a prayer for condonation of delay and needless to say that the petitioners though had raised an issue regarding the application being time barred and that the sufficient cause has not been explained is a matter which is yet to be decided by the respondent no.3 and that in itself cannot be ground for a preliminary objection to assail before this Court. 12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition leaving it open for the petitioner to raise his objection before the respondent no.3 including on the issue of limitation which needless to say shall be considered and decided by the authority in accordance with law after affording full opportunity as well as keeping in mine the order of expedition passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.08.2025. 13. In view of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. October 13, 2025 ank WRIC No. 9826 of 2025 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench