Allahabad High Court
WRIC/6808/2025 of BANSHIDHAR AND 3 OTHERS Vs ADDL. COMMISSIONER, ADMINISTRATION SECOND, DEVIPATAN MANDAL, GONDA AND ANOTHER on 5 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 6808 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Heard Sri Patanjali Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for respondent No.1. 1. In light of the proposed order notice to private respondents is
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 6808 of 2025
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
Heard Sri Patanjali Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for respondent No.1.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. In light of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.
2. The present controversy pertains to mutation proceedings with regard to gata No.s 144 area 0.15 hectare, 192 area 5.28, 251 area 10.19 and 502 area 1.166 hectare situated in Village Persia Gauri, Tehsil Tulsipur, District Balrampur. The application under Section 34 preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the Tehsildar. Subsequently, the application for recall was preferred by private respondents which has also been allowed on 7.10.2024 against which the petitioner preferred a revision before Additional Commissioner (Administration), Second, Devi Patan Division, Gonda. The revision of the petitioner was filed with a delay of nearly two and half months and the revisional authority has not condoned the delay and rejected the revision on the ground of limitation.
3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in a meanwhile a writ petition was preferred before this Court bearing petition under
4. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Patanjali Chaturvedi, Mohit Ashok, Pranshu Mishra, Tripti Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Manish Barnwal, Rishi Kumar Tripathi Banshidhar And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) Addl. Commissioner, Administration Second, Devipatan Mandal, Gonda And Another .....Respondent(s)
Article 227 No.6467 of 2024 which has been dismissed on 3.1.2025. It has been submitted that it is subsequent to the decision of the said petition that the petitioner had preferred a revision.
Considering the grounds taken by the petitioner and also the period of delay in filing the revision, which is slightly more than two and half months, this Court is of the considered opinion that the delay ought to have been condoned by the revisional authority as sufficient cause has been explained by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, on that ground, the writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs.2500/- payable to opposite party No.2 within four weeks from today.
5. The matter is remitted back to Additional Commissioner (Administration), Second, Devi Patan Division, Gonda, who shall proceed to consider and decide the revision on merits with expedition, after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
6. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings before the revisional authority.
7. December 5, 2025 RKM. WRIC No. 6808 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench