Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76671 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13708 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt Sunita Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nand Kishor Mishra,Sanjay Kumar Asthana Counsel for Respondent :- Achal Singh,C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking following relief :- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent nos.2 and 3 writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.01.2025 and 07.02.2018. II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent nos.2, in the revision in Revisional Case No.00332 of 2018, Computerized No.C201807000000332 (Smt. Sunita Devi Versus Babulal and Others) under section 333 of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act, 1950 as well as impugned order dated 07.02.2018 passed by respondent no.3 in case no.RST/00275/2018, No.T201807480100275 Computerized (Devideen Versus Smt. Sunita Devi and Others) under section 176 of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act, 1950." 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a decree under Section 176 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was passed in favour of the petitioner. A restoration application was moved by the respondent. The said decree has been set aside on the ground that no notice was given to the respondent and the restoration application was allowed. Against the order allowing the restoration application, petitioner filed a revision and the same has also been dismissed. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that notices were sent to the respondents and summons were also published in Hindi Daily newspaper despite that the respondent did not contest the matter and the decree was passed against him. 4. Finding has been recorded by Courts below that respondent was residing in Delhi in connection with his employment. This fact has not been denied by learned Counsel for the petitioner. Respondent was impleaded as defendant in the suit with his village address. 5. No illegality has been committed by the Court below in allowing the restoration application. 6. Since the matter is pending before respondent No.3, it is expected that respondent No.3 shall consider the same and decide the above-mentioned suit, expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after ensuring service of notice upon all the respondents and providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties as well as giving a reasonable opportunity of leading evidence in respect of their case provided there is no other legal impediment. 7. Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submitted that his client will co-operate in disposal of the above-mentioned suit and will not seek any undue adjournments. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Rishabh Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad