Allahabad High Court
MANAUVAR ALIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Holding
The petition is disposed, allowing the petitioner to file appropriate applications for recall and delay condonation.
Summary
Manauvar Ali challenged two orders dismissing his first appeal and subsequent restoration under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for want of prosecution. He filed a second restoration application on 16‑06‑2026, after which the officer orally informed his counsel that the application was not maintainable. The High Court noted that the officer’s oral view could not be faulted but held that the petitioner remains free to seek recall of the 06‑01‑2026 order by filing a proper application with a condonation of delay. The Court did not grant any substantive relief but permitted the petitioner to pursue the appropriate applications, which will be dealt with on their merits. Consequently, the petition was disposed without deciding the merits of the restoration claim.
Issues considered
- Whether the second restoration application filed on 16‑06‑2026 is maintainable under the U.P. Revenue Code.
- Whether the order dated 06‑01‑2026 dismissing the restoration can be recalled.
- Whether an oral opinion of the revenue officer can be challenged in this proceeding.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67(5)
Subjects
- restoration of appeal
- want of prosecution
- recall of order
- procedural law
- U.P. Revenue Code
Judgment
.
.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 38410 of 2026
Manauvar Ali
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjai Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Kumar Gupta
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged orders dated 23.08.2024 and 06.01.2026.
By the order dated 23.08.2024, first appeal filed under Section 67 (5) of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was dismissed for want of prosecution and
by order dated 06.01.2026, his restoration was also dismissed for want of
prosecution.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a second restoration
application has been moved on 16.06.2026 and the officer has orally told
the petitioner's counsel that second restoration application is not
maintainable.
3. The Court has perused the said application wherein also, prayer has
been made not to recall the order dated 06.01.2026 but to recall the order
dated 23.08.2024.
4. In view of the above fact situation, even if the officer has orally
informed the petitioner's counsel, as indicated hereinbefore, the opinion
formed by him cannot be faulted.
5. Nevertheless, it is open for the petitioner to seek recall of the order
dated 06.01.2026, for which purpose, he may move appropriate
WRIC No. 38410 of 2026
2
application along with delay condonation application.
6. This petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file appropriate
applications, which if filed, shall be registered and shall be considered on
their own merits.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.)
September 23, 2026
Jyotsana
Digitally signed by :-
JYOTSANA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…