JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar Nigam learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 and Mr. Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.Gaon Sabha.

2. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is being finally disposed of at admission stage.

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was allotted abadi land of Arazi No. 225/1 in the year 1993 in accordance with rules and the same was approved by Sub-Divisional-Magistrate on 21.03.1993. Petitioner comes under first category of sub-section (3) of Section 122 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. The construction was raised by the petitioner over the land allotted to him. On an application dated 23.07.1999 under Section 115-P of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act filed by the Gram Pradhan after six year, proceedings were imitated against the petitioner. Petitioner filed objection in the aforesaid proceeding. The Sub-Divisional-Magistrate vide order dated 05.09.2013 cancelled the approval order dated 22.03.1993. Petitioner challenged the order dated 05.09.2013 through revision No.447 of 2013 before respondent No.3 in which interim order was granted by the respondent No.3 staying operation of the order passed by the courts below and matter was fixed for disposal. Revision was fixed for 14.05.2016 but due to absence of counsel for the petitioner revision was dismissed as default on 14.05.2016. Petitioner came to know about the order dated 14th May, 2016 on 01.05.2018 accordingly, the restoration application along with delay condonation was filed to recall the order dated 14.05.2016. The respondent No.3 vide order dated 06.10.2018 rejected the restoration application on the ground of delay. Petitioner challenged order dated 06.10.2018 by way of revision before the respondent No.4. In the revision interim order was passed, but later on, revision was rejected by impugned order dated 27.10.2021 saying that matter was rightly decided by the courts below and the revision filed by the petitioner dismissed, hence the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was allotted abadi land of the gaon sabha himself after following due procedure of law even approval was also granted by the Sub-Divisional-Magistrate but in order to harass the petitioner-proceeding of under Rule 115-P of U.P.Z.A.& L.R.Act has been initiated which was arbitrarily decided against the petitioner, against which revision was filed and the revision was dismissed on the technical ground. He submitted that in place of dismissal of the revision, on technical grounds matter should be decided on merits.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that petitioner has not explained the delay satisfactorily and have not appeared on the date fixed in the revision in order to linger on the proceeding as such, the restoration was rejected and revision has been rightly dismissed by the courts below.

6. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is an allottee of gaon sabha land and the proceeding initiated after six years by the gaon sabha was decided arbitrarily, against which petitioner has filed the statutory revision which was dismissed on the technical ground. Petitioner has explained delay in filing the restoration application, as such in the interests of justice in view of the law laid by the Apex Court in A.I.R. 1987 SC 1353 Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and another Vs. Mst Kantiji and others in place of dismissing the matter on technical ground, matter should be decided on merits.

8. Para No.3 of the above mentioned Supreme Court judgment is as follows:

"The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 51 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'.