Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the respondent No. 2, Board of Revenue (for brevity “the Board”) dated 5.7.2012 whereby it has rejected the restoration application of the petitioner only on the ground that it was moved after two years.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner claims that in the proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 had succeeded to get their names recorded in revenue papers by an order dated 26.6.1990 passed by the Tehsildar. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said order has been secured on the basis of fabricated documents and a fictitious compromise.

3. The petitioner and the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 had moved an application to recall the said order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Allahabad. According to the the petitioner, the said order dated 26.6.1990 was passed without jurisdiction. However, recall applications were rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 12.12.1995.

4. Dissatisfied with the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner preferred a revision before the third respondent being Revision No. 33 of 1995 (Ashok Kumar v. Buddhu and others). The Revisional Court has noted the fact that the stand of the petitioner was that on the date of compromise he was minor hence the compromise was null and void. The revision of the petitioner was allowed and the order dated 26.6.1990 was set aside by order dated 25.11.1998. Later, a reference was made on 19.6.2002 to the Board.

5. It is stated that on 30.3.2009 the date was fixed before the Board but when the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not present hence the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner had thereafter moved a restoration application supported by an affidavit after two years i.e. on 7.9.2011. The restoration application has been rejected by the Board only on the ground that it was filed after the delay of two years. The Board was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the petitioner for the said delay.

6. I have heard Sri M.S. Pandey and Sri Harish Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shyam Lal Yadav, learned Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the bona fide reasons the delay had occurred, which the petitioner had explained in Section-5 Application supported by an affidavit. It is stated that at the time the matter was called out, learned counsel for the petitioner was busy in some other Court hence he could not attend the case. As regards moving the application after two years the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to various paragraphs of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of Section-5 Application. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramji Dass and others v. Mohan Singh, 1978 ARC 496.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents Sri Yadav submits that no proper explanation had been furnished by the petitioner in his Section-5 Application hence the Board was justified in rejecting it. He further submits that Section-3 of the Limitation Act provides that any application would not be entertained after the delay. He lastly urged that the Board has rejected the delay condonation application hence no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. It is a common ground that the proceedings are arising out of mutation proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The revision of the petitioner was allowed on the ground that at the time of compromise between the parties the petitioner was minor hence the revisional Court took the view that the compromise was n