HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 30086 of 2026 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Satendra Bhushan Dubey, learned standing counsel for the state- respondents and Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the entire proceeding of the appeals bearing Appeal No.160/A (Computer Case No.C202515000002062) (Ujair Ahmad vs. Extra Magistrate 2nd Azamgarh and Others) (Anneuxre No.12 of the writ petition) as well as the Appeal No.115/A (Computer Case No.C202515000003125) (Ujair Ahmad vs. Extra Magistrate 2nd Azamgarh and Others) (Annexure No.15 of the writ petition), under Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, pending before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh within the stipulated period" 3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, filed on behalf of the petitioner's father was decreed on 22.6.2006. He submitted that against the judgment and decree dated 22.6.2006, a revision filed by private respondent is pending before the Board of Revenue. He submitted that time-barred restoration application dated 18.5.2023 filed by private respondents Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devbratt Yadav, Ram Pratap Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rameshwar Prasad Shukla Atik Ahmad And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U,P, And 8 Others .....Respondent(s) against the judgment and decree dated 22.6.2006 has been rejected vide order dated 10.7.2025. He submitted that appeal has been filed by the private respondents under Section 331(3) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, challenging the ex parte judgment and decree dated 22.6.2006 and another appeal has been filed challenging the rejection of the restoration application filed for recalling the ex parte judgment and decree dated 22.6.2006. He submitted that objection has been filed on behalf of the petitioners in the aforementioned appeal, stating that appeal against the order, rejecting the restoration application on 10.7.2025 is not maintainable as well as appeal filed with delay of about 19 years, especially, when revision has already been filed against the same order, cannot be entertained but the court has not considered the objection of the petitioner in accordance with law. He submitted that in view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the entire proceedings of both the appeals should be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha submitted that no interference is required in the matter as the appeals filed by the private respondents are pending before respondent no.4/Additional Commissioner, as such, petitioner can press his objection in the aforementioned appeals rather the writ petition before this Court. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the state, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act filed by the petitioner's father was decreed by the trial court on 22.6.2006 and restoration application filed by the private respondents against the judgment and decree dated 22.6.2006 passed by the trial court has been rejected on 10.7.2025. There is also no dispute about the fact the revision filed by private respondent against the judgment and decree dated 22.6.2006 is pending before the Board of Revenue. There is also no dispute about the fact that two appeals have been filed by the private respondents WRIC No. 30086 of 2026 2 which are pending before respondent no.4. There is also no dispute about the fact that objection dated 8.9.2025 at the instance of the petitioner is pending before respondent no.4 in the aforementioned appeal. 7. Considering the circumstances of the case, the interest of justice requires that petitioner's objection dated 8.9.2025 should be considered first by the appellate court in accordance with law. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no.4 to consider and decide the petitioner's objection dated 8.9.2025 filed in Appeal No.160/A (Computer Case No.C202515000002062) (Ujair Ahmad vs. Extra Magistrate 2nd, Azamgarh and Others), expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 months, from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, in accordance with law. It is further directed that another Appeal No.115/A (Computer Case No.C202515000003125) (Ujair Ahmad vs. Extra Magistrate 2nd, Azamgarh and Others) is barred by limitation, as such, respondent no.4 shall consider and decide the delay condonation matter 1st within the aforementioned period, in the light of the objection of the petitioners which will be filed by the petitioners within a period of three weeks from today. September 8, 2026 C.Prakash WRIC No. 30086 of 2026 3 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad