HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 5651 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.05.2025, whereby his restoration application has been rejected on the ground that even earlier his restoration had been rejected. 3. It is urged that the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (for short, 'the Code, 2006') were initiated against the petitioner and an ex-parte order dated 30.11.2024 was passed. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved moved an application for recall of the said order, however, the said application for recall was rejected on 24.04.2025 on the premise that the petitioner was not present. This led the petitioner to file another application for recall of the order dated 24.04.2025 which has been rejected, as noticed above on the premise that earlier the application had been rejected. 5. Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, has very graciously submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained as it does not take note of the sufficiency of cause which was pleaded. It has also been suggested that since the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 were initiated against the petitioner, it would be in the fitness of things if the matter can be adjudicated on merit. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Kumar Yadav, Deepti Singh, Virendra Vikram Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Baba Deen .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall furnish an undertaking before the respondent No.2 and shall deposit a cost of Rs.5,000/- with the respondent No.2 and that he shall decide the proceedings so that the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 can be taken to its logical conclusion on merits. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders are set aside. The proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 shall stand restored on the board of the respondent No.2. The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking along with the amount, as mentioned above, on 29.10.2025. In case, if the amount of Rs.5,000/- is not deposited along with the undertaking as suggested above, the proceedings shall not be revived. However, upon the compliance as aforesaid, the matter shall be heard and decided expeditiously, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, but without granting an unnecessary adjournment. In case, if the petitioner seeks to misuse the liberty, it will be open for the Tehsildar concerned to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed. October 16, 2025 Rakesh/- WRIC No. 5651 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench