HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 2494 of 2025 Court No. - 49 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Suman Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos.5 to 11 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Present petition has been filed for the following relief: "a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 passed by Board of Revenue/respondent no. 1 in Revision No. 1263 of 2005-06/Jaunpur Computerized Case No. R200608320026098 (Rajani Devi Versus Subhawati) under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act and order dated 03.05.2006 passed by Additional Commissioner (1st) Varanasi Division, Varanasi/ respondent no. 2 in Revision No. 357/2006 [Jaunpur] and order dated 12.04.2006 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Saremu, Tehsil Sadar, District Jaunpur/respondent no.3 (Annexure No.14, 12 and 8 respectively to this writ petition." 3. Facts of this case are that petitioners had purchased a land in Arazi No.760 situated in Village-Dudhaura, Pargana Haveli, Tehsildar Sadar, District-Jaunpur through sale deed dated 17.11.1993. Thereafter, mutation application was also filed on 12.07.1995 before the Consolidation Officer that remains pending and thereafter, private respondents have also purchased the same land through sale deed dated 15.07.1996 in Arazi No.760. Thereafter, the private respondents also filed mutation application before the consolidation authorities which was also pending. After closing of the consolidation proceeding on 02.07.2003, the private respondents filed mutation application on 28.02.2006 before the Naib Tehsildar which was allowed and name of the person was mutated on the basis of sale deed 15.07.1996 on 12.04.2006. Thereafter, petitioners moved a restoration application dated 22.04.2006 on which notice was issued and ex parte order dated 22.04.2006 was also passed and order Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vijay Singh Chauhan, Virendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C., Suman Kumar Yadav, Yogesh Chandra Yadav Lal Chand Chauhan And 12 Others .....Petitioner(s) Board Of Revenue, U.P. And 12 Others .....Respondent(s) dated 12.04.2006 was also stayed. Thereafter, the private respondents preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Varanasi Region, Varanasi which was heard by Additional Commissioner Ist who stayed the order dated 22.04.2006 of Naib Tehsildar by ex parte order dated 03.05.2006 against which revision was filed by the present petitioners before Board of Revenue, Prayagraj, which was dismissed on the ground that the order passed by the Commissioner was interlocutory in nature against which no revision lies. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the respondent no.2-Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi dated 03.05.2006 was ex parte and same was passed without hearing the petitioners. Therefore, same deserves to be set aside and this fact was also ignored by the Board of Revenue. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondents has submitted that the order dated 22.04.2006 passed by the Tehsildar itself is ex parte and once the order was passed on the mutation application of the private respondents on 12.04.2006 then Naib Tehsildar was required to issue notice on the restoration application of petitioners only then he could have passed order staying the order dated 12.04.2006 after hearing the parties. 6. After hearing the submission of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is clear that the order dated 22.04.2006 passed by the Naib Tehsildar staying earlier mutation order dated 12.04.2006 was ex parte order. Similarly, the order passed by the respondent no.2-Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi dated 03.05.2006 was also ex parte and this fact was also ignored by the Board of Revenue. 7. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate that restoration application filed by the petitioners dated 22.04.2006 be heard in a time bound manner and ex parte order be set aside. 8. In view of the above, the order dated 03.05.2006 passed by the respondent no.2-Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi as well as order dated 22.04.2006 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Saremu, Tehsil Sadar, District-Jaunpur passed in Case No.97, Subhawati Vs Ramanuj, are set aside. WRIB No. 2494 of 2025 2 9. The matter is remitted back to the Naib Tehsildar to pass fresh order on the restoration application of the petitioners, after hearing both the parties. 10. It is directed that the restoration application filed by the present petitioners shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receiving the copy of this order. 11. Till decision is made on the restoration application of the petitioners, status quo should be maintained. 12. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition is disposed of. September 4, 2025 S.C. WRIB No. 2494 of 2025 3 (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad