JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for private-respondent no.5 and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 to 4.

2. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23.9.1975 passed by Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad and order dated 17.8.2021 passed by Board of Revenue, Allahabad rejecting the highly time barred restoration application dated 3.7.2019 filed against the order dated 30.9.1986 passed in Revision No. 106 of 1975-76/Fatehpur.

3. Facts culled out from the averment made in the writ petition are that proceeding has been initiated for realization of the loan amount as land revenue. The property of Sankata Prasad (father of present petitioners) was sold in auction sale dated 25.7.1974 in favour of Balbir (respondent no.5). Feeling aggrieved against the said auction sale, Sankata Prasad had filed objection under Section 281 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act read with Rules 285-I and 285-J of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, inter alia, on the grounds that the share of Sankata Prasad is only 1/4 but auction had illegally been taken place showing his half share (1/2) in the property in question. The objection filed by Sankata Prasad was rejected by order dated 23.9.1975 passed by Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad on the basis of the report of Lekhpal and other documents, showing the ownership of the Sankata Prasad to the extent of half share (1/2) in the property in question, therefore, auction sale dated 25.7.1974 was held valid with respect to his half share. Having been aggrieved against the order dated 23.9.1975, Sankata Prasad had preferred revision being Revision No. 106 of 1975-76/Fatehpur before the Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed vide order dated 30.9.1986. After the death of Sankata Prasad, his sons (the present petitioners) have filed highly belated restoration application dated 3.7.2019, which was rejected being time barred vide order dated 17.8.2021 passed by Board of Revenue, which is under challenged in the present writ petition.

4. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that more than the valid share of Sankata Prasad had been put to auction sale, but the same has illegally been ignored by the court below and unfortunately, restoration application, filed on behalf of present petitioners was rejected on the ground of latches. After the death of Sankata Prasad on 4.11.2018, while the contesting respondent has tried to sell the property in question, petitioners came to know about the entire facts. It is further submitted that the petitioners could not know the previous proceeding, therefore, they could not file the restoration application within time. Orders passed by the Board of Revenue are illegal and suffers from infirmity and irregularity, therefore, these orders should be quashed and one opportunity should be given to the petitioners to defend their case.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5 (auction purchasers) contended that the orders dated 23.9.1975 and 30.9.1986 were passed in the presence of Sankata Prasad (father of the petitioners). It is evident from the perusal of the aforesaid orders, which are annexed as annexure-3 and 5 respectively to the writ petition, that the auction sale has already attained finality in the year 1974 and after such a belated stage there is no justification for challenging said auction proceedings. It is further contended that since 1974, respondent no.5 is in the possession over the property in question and all rights pertains to the subject matter of auction sale, are vested with him. No sufficient ground has been assigned by the petitioners in filing the restoration application at a belated stage. The impugned orders passed by Board of Revenue and Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad