Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51882 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10490 of 2025 Petitioner :- Meva Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Mishra,Niraj Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned orders dated 24.7.2009 and 28.1.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 and 3 respectively (Annexure- 5 & 9 to this writ petition). B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to maintain the Revenue record inpursuant to order dated 7.7.2006 passed by Sub Divisional Officer Pindra Varanasi under section 33/39 of L.R.Act Meva versus state within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.5 to 7 not to interfere in peaceful nature and possession of the land in respect of disputed land in pursuant to impugned orders dated 24.7.2009 and 28.1.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 and 3 respectively within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 3. Brief facts of the case are that in proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 an order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 07.07.2006. An application dated 14.05.2007 was filed for recalling the order dated 07.07.2006. The application for recall filed by the respondents was allowed by order dated 24.07.2009 and the order was recalled. Against the order dated 24.07.2009, the petitioner preferred a revision and the revision has been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent has illegally allowed the recall application filed by the respondents and the revision filed by the petitioner has been erroneously dismissed. 5. From the perusal of the order allowing the restoration application, it is apparent that a finding has been recorded by the court below that the order was ex-parte against the respondents and they had interest in the matter. 6. Since the proceedings are pending before respondent No. 3, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to contest the proceedings and respondent No. 3- Sub Divisional Officer, Pindra, Varanasi is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid proceedings, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, after hearing all the concerned parties and giving a reasonable opportunity of leading evidence in respect of their case provided there is no other legal impediment . Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad