Allahabad High Court

ATIK AHMAD AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U,P, AND 8 OTHERS

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

Holding

The Court held that the pending appeals should not be quashed but the objection filed by the petitioners must be heard in Appeal No.160/A, and Appeal No.115/A is barred by limitation.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ seeking certiorari to quash two appeals filed by private respondents under Section 331 of the U.P. Zilla Adalat & Land Revenue Act, which challenged a 2006 decree and a rejected restoration application. They argued the appeals were filed after a 19‑year delay and that their objection dated 8‑9‑2025 had not been considered. The respondents contended that the petitioners could raise their objection within the pending appeals and that the High Court should not interfere. The Court observed that the objection must be entertained first and that one of the appeals is time‑barred. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ, directing the Additional Commissioner to hear the objection in Appeal No.160/A within three months and to dismiss Appeal No.115/A as barred by limitation.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court should quash the pending appeals filed under Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act.
Whether the petitioner's objection dated 8‑9‑2025 should be considered before the appellate authority.
Whether Appeal No.115/A is barred by limitation.

Legislation cited

U.P. Zilla Adalat & Land Revenue Act — s. 229-B, 331, 331(3)

Subjects

writ petition
certiorari
limitation period
appeal
Section 331
Section 229-B
land revenue
objection
quash

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 30086 of 2026

Atik Ahmad And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U,P, And 8 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devbratt Yadav, Ram Pratap Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rameshwar Prasad Shukla

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
WRIC No. 30086 of 2026
2

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
3

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.

(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
September 8, 2026
C.Prakash

Digitally signed by :-
CHANDRA PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…