Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80618 Court No. - 49 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1231 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar,Ashwini Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J. 1. Heard Mr. Ashwini Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the motion to admit this petition to hearing at length and Ms. Amrita Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner, claiming himself to be a member of the Scheduled Caste and a landless man, moved the Sub-Divisional Officer, Meerut, invoking his powers under Section 122-B(4F) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 ('Act of 1950' for short), way back in the year 2015. The claim was that he is in possession of khasra no. 141 minjumla/0.3690, which he is cultivating. It was prayed that he may be recognized or acknowledged as a asankramaniya bhumidhar. 3. The petitioner's case was recommended by the Tehsildar vide report dated 09.07.2012. When the case came up before the Deputy Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer on 05.11.2015, the petitioner did not appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer recorded that, for the past three dates, the petitioner was consistently absent. The Sub-Divisional Officer, therefore, proceeded to examine the records with the assistance of the Additional DGC (Revenue). 4. The Additional DGC pointed out that the petitioner had not filed any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. There were oral testimonies, but those were very contradictory and inconsistent. The inconsistencies noticed were with reference to the testimony of the witness, Parmal. The Sub-Divisional Officer also noticed that there was no approach to the petitioner's field. In the absence of cogent evidence, to establish a case of settled possession, the Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the petitioner's application under Section 122-B(4F) of the Act of 1950 vide order dated 05.11.2015. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision to the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, which came up before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial)-4th on 27.10.2016. When the case was called on, the petitioner and his Counsel did not appear. It was, accordingly, dismissed in default on 27.10.2016. 5. The petitioner moved a restoration application, seeking recall of the order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner. The application was allowed on 11.07.2017 and the revision restored to file. The revision next came up before the Additional Commissioner on 09.01.2018, but, again, the petitioner was absent. It was, therefore, dismissed for non- prosecution, once again. A restoration application was, therefore, moved on 09.01.2018, seeking to set aside the order dated 09.01.2018. 6. The Additional Commissioner has remarked that the conduct of the petitioner shows that he and his Counsel were absent on 27.10.2016, on account of which, the revision was dismissed in default. Upon the petitioner's restoration application being allowed and the revision restored, his Counsel did not appear again on 09.01.2018. The revision was, therefore, once again dismissed in default. It was remarked that the present restoration application appears to be a deliberate action, involving the making of repeat restoration applications. The Additional Commissioner also said that the petitioner was committing the misadventure of attempting to keep the revision pending and lingering it on. Noting all these facts, the Additional Commissioner did not find sufficient cause to recall the order dated 09.01.2018 and rejected the restoration application vide order dated 25.06.2019. 7. The petitioner went in further revision to the Board of Revenue, Circuit Court-1, Meerut. It was held that a further revision by the same party, against a revisional order, was not maintainable in view of sub-Section (2) of Section 333 of the Act of 1950. It was, therefore, rejected as not maintainable. 8. It appears that the petitioner had moved an application for review on 11.07.2019, seeking review of the Additional Commissioner's orders dated 09.01.2018 and 25.06.2019, dismissing the revision in default and refusing to restore it. The petitioner pressed this review application, but, vide order dated 30.08.2024, the review too has been rejected 9. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, at great length, we find that the petitioner furnishes the classical example of a litigant who is not a rare specie anymore. They take the process of Court for granted and so also their right to restoration. The matter assumes serious dimensions because litigants, who do not diligently pursue their cause and, to the contrary, habitually commit default, not only do a disservice to themselves but cause immense inconvenience to the other side and wastage of judicial time, which can be better spent on worthier causes espoused by the more needy and sincere litigants. 10. In the entirely of circumstances, we are convinced that no case for interference with the impugned order, in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is made out. This petition is summarily dismissed. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Prashant D. Digitally signed by :- PRASHANT DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad