JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. Madan Mohan, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dwidendra Prasad, Counsel for respondent No.5, Mr. L.K. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Avinash Chandra Srivastav, Counsel for respondent No.4, Gram Panchayat.

2. The brief facts of the case are that khasra plot No. 266 area 0.191 hectare, situated in village-Chandrapur, Tahsil-Bah, District Agra was recorded as navin parti. An agriculture lease was executed in favour of respondent No.5, Roop Kishore Chaturvedi, S/o Chetan Das, R/O Village- Chandrapur, Tehsil - Bah, District-Agra (U.P.) and the same was approved also on 26.03.1992. Petitioner filed a complaint against the allotment of respondent No.5, which was registered as Case No. 64 of 1995-96, under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, respondent No.5 appeared in the proceedings and filed his reply also but subsequently absented from the proceedings, hence, the case was directed to be proceeded ex-parte. The Additional District Magistrate/ Additional Collector , vide order dated 31.12.1996, cancelled the allotment of respondent No.5. Against the order dated 31.12.1996, respondent No.5 filed a restoration application along with an application under Section 5 of Indian LIMITATION ACT on 19.01.2010 i.e. after about 14 years. Petitioner filed his objection to the restoration application as well as delay condonation application. Additional Collector , vide order dated 30.05.2015, set aside the ex-parte order dated 31.12.1996, allowed the application dated 19.01.2010 and restored the case on its original number for decision afresh. Petitioner challenged the order dated 19.01.2010 through revision before Commissioner and the same was heard and dismissed by Additional Commissioner, vide order dated 11.08.2022, hence this writ petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that restoration application filed by respondent No.5 was highly time barred i.e. about 14 years but Additional Collector without recording proper finding on condonation of delay of 14 years, has allowed the application dated 19.01.2010 filed by respondent No.5 but there is no specific order for condonation of delay of 14 years. He further submitted that order dated 15.12.1996 to proceed ex-parte has not been challenged by respondent No.5, hence, the final order dated 31.12.1996 by which lease of respondent No.5 was cancelled, cannot be recalled. He further submitted that respondent No.5 has appeared in the proceeding under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act through Counsel and filed his reply also but subsequently absented from the proceedings, as such, order dated 31.12.1996 was passed in accordance with law cancelling the allotment of respondent No.5. He further submitted that land in question was not vacant for allotment and no permission under Section 28 -C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act was obtained, as such, the allotment made in favour of respondent No.5 was illegal and irregular. He further submitted that impugned orders be set aside and writ petition be allowed.

4. On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent No.5 submitted that although restoration application filed by respondent No.5 was barred by limitation of 14 year but the delay was explained in the application under Section 5 of Indian LIMITATION ACT supported by affidavit, as such, the order dated 31.12.1996 cancelling the allotment of respondent No.5 has been set aside after considering the delay condonation question also and case has been restored on its original number for decision afresh, as such, no interference is required against the discretion exercised by Additional Collector . He further submitted that