SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No. 1539 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent no.5. 3. By the instant petition, the petitioners are challenging the order of Assistant Collector dated 10.02.2023 passed in Misc. Case No. 4/ 2017-18 under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act as well as against the order dated 18.09.2023 passed in Appeal No. 24 of 2022-23 and order of Board of Revenue dated 14.10.2025 passed in Second Appeal No. 06 of 2023-24. 4. Brief facts of the present case are that, petitioners are defendants in Misc. Case No. 04 of 2017-18 which is preferred under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act in which ex parte decree was passed, against which an application was moved by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for recalling the ex parte judgment and decree, however, the same was rejected on 10.02.2023 against which appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the Commissioner that too was also rejected against which Second Appeal No. 06 of 2023-24 was preferred before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue also dismissed the same and now being aggrieved, instant petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have gone through with the ex parte order passed by the Assistant Collector as well as the order passed by the Appellate Court and the order of Board of Revenue, on perusal of which it reveals that all the issues have been dealt with by the Courts below even the Board of Revenue have also framed three substantial questions of law, which were answered against the petitioners. 6. Ms. Anjali Bhargava learned counsel for the respondent no.5 submits that all the Courts below including the Board of Revenue have dealt with all the issues and there is no scope of interference in the orders impugned. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after gone through with the orders impugned, I do not find any substance in the instant petition. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 27.05.2026 SKS/Nahid