Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141361 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 68524 of 2014 Petitioner :- Sarnam Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Madan Mohan,P.S. Verma,Prem Sagar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava,Raj Karan Yadav,Rajnesh Kumar,Shri Prakash Dwivedi Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. Heard Sri P.S. Verma, counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.P. Tiwari along with Sri Rajnessh Yadav, counsel for respondent nos.6 and 7 and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Through this petition, a challenge has been made to the proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short 'the Act') initiated by the private respondents as well as the order passed on the restoration application and the order passed by the Revisional Authority. 3. Facts giving rise to the present petition are that a declaratory suit under Section 229-B of the Act was filed by the private respondent nos.6 and 7 in the year 1995. The suit was decreed on 18.07.1995. The written statement was filed by Sarnam Singh (defendant), father of the present petitioners. Against the decree passed in the declaratory suit, no appeal was preferred. Petitioners on 15.06.2011 filed a restoration application for recalling ex parte decree on the ground that their father had not filed any written statement nor had made any statement before the court concerned and the decree was obtained by fraud. The restoration application was dismissed by order impugned dated 25.03.2013, against which a revision was preferred which has been rejected by order dated 31.07.2014, hence this writ petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in question was allotted to their father namely Sarnam Singh in the year 1976. They have possession over the said land. The ex parte decree was obtained by fraud by the private respondents which was not within the knowledge of their father nor they were aware of the said fact. On 23.05.2011 when the petitioners came to know about the said fact, they immediately moved a restoration application which has been rejected by the order impugned. 5. Sri Tiwari, counsel for private-respondent nos.6 and 7 submits that the matter had stood concluded between the parties in the year 1995, after declaratory suit was decreed. The father of the petitioners had deposed before the Court concerned and had also filed his written statement. The decree was carried out and name of the private respondents was mutated in the revenue records in the year 2000. He further submits that the private respondents have possession over the land and the petitioners have no concern over the said land. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. From perusal of the restoration application dated 15.06.2011, it is clear that no disclosure has been made as to how the petitioners came to know about the ex parte decree of 1995. The only averment made is in paragraph 7 to the extent that petitioners came to know about the ex parte order and after consulting his counsel and inspecting the document he found that all the documents are forged. The averment made in the application cannot be believed as there is no disclosure that any eviction proceedings were initiated against the petitioners or they were being dispossessed by the private-respondents. It appears to be a case set-up by the petitioners after a lapse of 16 years for recalling the decree of 1995, which has already been executed in the revenue records in the year 2000. Both the courts below have recorded a specific finding against the petitioners which needs no interference by this Court. 8. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 CS/- Digitally signed by :- CHANDAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad