BHAGWAN PRASAD AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 35407 of 2026

Bhagwan Prasad And Another
                                                               .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi, Soumyesh
                                  Dutt Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : C.S.C., Pradeep Singh

Court No. - 37
                 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Diwedi, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri Dinesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri
Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

     i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
     commanding and directing the respondent no.2 to decide the
     restoration application no. 5 of 2026 petitioners dated
     27.07.2026 (Annexure no.1) within stipulated period which
     may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

     ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
     commanding and directing the respondent no.2 to stay the
     effect and operation of order dated 09-06-2026 (Annexure
     no.8) passed in appeal no. 919 of 2026 computerized case no.
     D202616530000919 till deciding the Restoration application
     no. 5 of 2026.

     iii) Issue any other and further order as this Hon'ble Court
     may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.


     iv) Award the costs of the petition to the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order for eviction
                                                        WRIC No. 35407 of 2026
                                2


and damages has been passed against petitioner no. 2 in an illegal and
arbitrary manner. He further submitted that the restoration application
filed on behalf of petitioner no. 2 has been rejected by the Tehsildar,
accordingly, an appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 was filed on behalf of the petitioner no. 2, which was dismissed by
the District Magistrate vide order dated 09.06.2026. He further submitted
that another appeal filed by brother of the petitioner no. 2 has been
allowed, vide order dated 11.06.2026 setting aside the order of Tehsildar
passed against him and matter has been remitted back before the
Tehsildar with a direction to decide the proceedings afresh. He submitted
that in view of the appellate order dated 11.06.2026 passed in the appeal
filed by the brother of the petitioner no. 2, the petitioner has filed a
restoration application dated 17.06.2026 against the appellate order dated
09.06.2026, which is pending. He further submitted that an appropriate
direction be issued for expeditious disposal of restoration application
dated 17.06.2026 within a time bound period and, till the disposal of the
restoration application, the order passed by Tehsildar should be kept in
abeyance.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State and learned counsel for the
Gaon Sabha submitted that no interference is required in the matter, as the
restoration application filed by the petitioner is pending before the District
Magistrate and petitioner can press the restoration application before the
District Magistrate rather writ petition before this Court. They further
submitted that against the order passed on merit, a restoration application
cannot be entertained.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State; learned counsel
for the Gaon Sabha and perused the record.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioner
no.2 has been dismissed by the District Magistrate on 09.06.2026 and the
restoration application dated 17.06.2026 filed on behalf of the petitioner
no. 2 is pending before respondent no. 2.

7. Considering the circumstances of the case, the interest of justice
                                                                                           WRIC No. 35407 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    requires that respondent no. 2 should decide the pending restoration
                                    application expeditiously.

                                    8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant
                                    petition is finally disposed of directing the respondent no. 2-District
                                    Magistrate-Mirzapur to decide the restoration application dated
                                    17.06.2026 filed by the petitioner no. 2 expeditiously, preferably within a
                                    period of six weeks' from the date of production of a certified copy of this
                                    order, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties.




                                                                                     (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Neetu




Digitally signed by :-
NEETU SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad