JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. Pavan Kumar, counsel for the petitioner and the Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondent.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed for mandamus, commanding/directing respondent no.2 to decide the application dated 16.10.2017, filed by the petitioner in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 17.10.1995, passed by respondent no.2 in Case No.57/1994-95, under Section 229 -B of the U.P. Z.A. S L.R. Act, in respect to plot no.624, area 0.484 hect., plot no.727, area 0.572 hect. and plot no.756, area 1.242 hect. (3 plots), situated in village Ahmadpur, Pargana and Tehsil-Bhogaon, District Mainpuri, within the stipulated period.

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a Suit No.57/1994-95, under Section 229 -B of the U.P. Z.A. S L.R. Act, impleading the State and the Gaon Sabha as defendants in respect to the aforesaid three plots which were recorded as banjar in the revenue records. The aforementioned suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner by judgment and order dated 17.10.1995. Against the judgment and order dated 17.10.1995, one stranger-Balbir Singh, who has no locus, filed a revision before the Commissioner, which was dismissed on 18.5.2016. Petitioner filed an application in the year 2016 for recording his name, after dismissal of revision vide order dated 18.5.2016, on the basis of the judgment dated 17.10.1995 but the authorities were sitting tight over the matter, hence this petition.

4. This Court on 2.1.2023/19.1.2023 directed the learned standing counsel to obtain necessary instructions in the matter.

5. In compliance of the order dated 2.1.2023/19.1.2023, instructions dated 4.2.2023 has been placed before the Court.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a suit under Section 229 -B of the U.P. Z.A. S L.R. Act filed by the petitioner was decreed on 17.10.1995 and the revision filed by stranger-Balbir Singh, against the judgment and decree dated 17.10.1995, was maintained by dismissing the revision in the year 2016, as such, petitioner is entitled to be recorded in the revenue records coupled with the fact that the State authorities are also bound to correct the revenue entry in pursuance of the judgment of the trial court under Section 229 -B of the U.P. Z.A. S L.R. Act. It is further submitted that an application was filed before the authorities but the name of the petitioner has not been recorded although the judgment and decree dated 17.10.1995 passed under Section 229 -B of the U.P. Z.A. S L.R. Act has not been set aside by any court of law.

7. On the other hand, Sri Abhishek Shukla, the learned Addl. C.S.C. submitted that the judgment and order dated 17.10.1995 was passed by the trial court without framing issues and the suit has been decreed on the basis of possession only. He further submitted that an application against the judgment and decree dated 17.10.1995 has been filed by the State for recall of the order dated 17.10.1995, on 17.1.2023/18.1.2023 which is pending before the trial court. He further submitted that although the judgment was passed on 17.10.1995 but the petitioner applied for recording his name on the basis of the judgment dated 17.10.1995 in the year 2017 only and was not pursuing the same diligently, as such, the same was dismissed by the authorities. It is also submitted that the petitioner was negligent in pursuing his relief, as such, petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the matter. It is also submitted that the State has filed a recall application, although it is beyond time of almost 28 years yet the delay has been explained in filing the same, as alleged in the instructions dated 4.2.2023.

8. In reply, counsel