Allahabad High Court
Vishok vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 18 August, 2025
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140121 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36110 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vishok Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Salilendu Kumar Upadhyay,Tanzeel Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Kant Singh Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Shri Abhijeet Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State.
2. Through this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 29.07.2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer/ Assistant Commissioner, Kol, District Aligarh in proceedings under Section 122B(4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1950') and the order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Region Aligarh.
3. Facts leading to the present case are that the petitioner and his brother- Vinod, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste community were in occupation of a land in dispute for more than five years and they moved an application under Section 122B(4-F) of the Act, 1950 for granting the benefit of the said provision on 22.02.2008. During pendency of the said application, Vinod, unfortunately, died. The matter was pursued by the widow of Vinod but she remarried and lost interest in the said proceedings. The application under Section 122B(4-F) of the Act, 1950 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 05.7.2013. The brother of the deceased- Vinod when came to know about the said fact, moved a restoration application which was rejected by the order dated 29.07.2021. Thereafter, a revision was preferred, which was also dismissed on 31.08.2024. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit under Section 122B(4-F) of the Act, 1950 on the ground that they were in occupation of the land in question before 2007 and the application was moved in the year 2008 for granting the said benefit. It is further contended that a report of the Naib Tehsildar was also submitted before the authorities on 28.03.2008 recommending for the benefit to be extended to the petitioner and his brother. According to the petitioner's counsel, it was due to the unfortunate demise of Vinod that the matter was not pursued and was dismissed for want of prosecution. It is then contended that the matter has not been heard on merit and the benefit as claimed has not been extended to the petitioner.
5. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and submits that there was a long delay and the authorities have rightly rejected the restoration application.
6. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. It is an admitted case to both the parties that the application was moved for grant of benefit under Section 122B(4-F) in the year 2008. The report was called on the said application by the Naib Tehsildar, who in the year 2008 had recommended for extending the benefit to the petitioner. The matter was kept pending and unfortunately, Vinod died and the matter was being looked after by his widow, who lost interest after she remarried. The application for grant of benefit was rejected in the year 2013 and when the petitioner came to know about the dismissal said order, he had moved a restoration application which had been rejected by the revenue authorities. The said order has been confirmed in the revision.
8. From the perusal of both the order impugned, I find that the matter has still not been decided by the revenue authorities on merit and only on the technical ground of delay, the benefit under Section 122B(4-F) has not been extended to the petitioner.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, both the impugned orders dated 31.08.2024 and 29.07.2021 are hereby quashed and matter is relegated to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kol, District Aligarh for reconsideration of the matter afresh strictly on merits and as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit under Section 122B(4-F) or not.
10. The writ petition stands allowed. The revenue officer concerned shall deal with the application under Section 122B(4-F) within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order strictly in accordance with law and pass the necessary orders on merit.
Order Date :- 18.8.2025 A. V. Singh