Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42514 Court No. - 44 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7485 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Yadav And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 23 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhil Krishna,Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Proceedings under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 were initiated initially against Gram Panchayat, however, later on, 11 private persons were impleaded by the order dated 10.08.2011. 3. By the first order impugned dated 07.04.2012, application for correction of map filed by Shyam Lal and 7 others was allowed accepting the tehsil report dated 03.06.2011. The petitioners filed recall application dated 02.05.2014, i.e. after a period of two years, stating that they did not get information about the proceedings. The recall application was rejected on 03.07.2017 against which, a revision was preferred, which was also dismissed by order dated 15.04.2024. 4. The present writ petition is reported to be beyond time by 236 days. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that except Ram Taul, i.e. petitioner no.3, no other person was having knowledge of the proceedings and, therefore, ex-parte decision be set aside and the matter may be remanded back for fresh consideration. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that cogent findings have been recorded dislodging the request of the petitioners to recall or set aside first order and, therefore, no interfere is warranted by this Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully perused the record, the Court finds that though initially the application under Section 28 filed in 2009 impleaded only Gram Panchayat, remaining 11 persons including the predecessors of the petitioners were impleaded by order dated 10.08.2011. All the three courts have recorded findings that after impleadment, summons were issued by ordinary as well as registered post, which were duly served upon the opposite parties (petitioners) and service report was also there on record. It has further been recorded that the recall application was filed after two years and there was no cogent explanation behind delay in filing the same. Even before this Court, it has not been disputed that Ram Taul, petitioner no.3, was contesting the proceedings. 8. The Court is not in a position to accept the said submissions and a careful perusal of array of parties shows that the petitioners are members of same family and, therefore, it cannot be believed that one of the sons of the deceased was having knowledge and contesting the proceedings, whereas others were not having any knowledge. Service by registered post leads presumption of due service as per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. Vague assertions have been made to allege the first order as ex-parte and it is not a case where the authorities have not examined the contentions raised by the petitioner as regards alleged non-service or alleged no knowledge of proceedings. The findings recorded in all the orders impugned cannot be said to be perverse nor have been shown to be so. 9. Even this writ petition has been reported to be beyond time by 236 days. The conduct of the petitioners in prosecuting lis compels this Court not to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction in their favour. 10. All the orders impugned are based upon material on record. 11. The writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 AKShukla/- Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad