JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Dwijendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.4.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in Revision No. 81 of 2012-13 (Computerized Case No. C2013100000274), under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and order dated 18.01.2013 passed by Assistant Collector First Class/Revenue Officer Mainpuri in Case No. 95 of 2009-10 under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (Ramvir Singh vs. Vinod and Others).

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to disturb the right, title and possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute well described in the writ petition, except following the dues required procedure in accordance with law.

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent authorities commanding them to keep intact the entries in the relevant statutory records as it is today up to the time until and unless the same are ordered to be modified, varied or expunged by any competent judicial forum.

(iv) issue a writ, order or mandamus in the nature of mandamus commanding the Executive authorities not to dispossess the petitioner by any administrative fiat except otherwise than in accordance with law.

(v) Pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(vi) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for declaration that the petitioner be declared bhumidhar with transferable right in respect to plot no. 638, 736, 762, 774, total four plots area 1.234 Hectare. On the basis of possession, State has filed written statement in the aforementioned suit. Trial Court vide ex-parte judgment and decree dated 7.1.2013 decreed the plaintiff's suit. On 18.1.2013, State filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 7.1.2013. Trial Court vide order dated 18.1.2013 allowed the application dated 18.1.2013 filed by State setting aside the ex-parte judgment dated 7.1.2013 and restored the suit for fresh decision on merit. Petitioner challenged the order dated 18.1.2023 through revision before Commissioner which has been dismissed vide order dated 29.4.2023, hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner challenging the orders dated 29.4.2023 and 18.1.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act filed by the petitioner has been decreed after filing of written statement by the State. He further submitted that in place of filing appeal under Section 331 (3) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the State after three days from deciding the suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He further submitted that the trial Court has allowed the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. in arbitrary manner. He next submitted that the petitioner filed a revision against the order allowing the application filed by the State which has been also dismissed in arbitrary manner. He also submitted that once the procedure prescribed has not been followed, the order impugned cannot be sustained. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court reported in Sunil Poddar and Others vs. Union Bank of India, AIR 2008 SC 1006 in order to demonstrate that the procedure prescribed should be followed for recalling the order passed in the proceeding.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that the