JUDGMENT

Jayant Banerji, J.

The office report of 5.4.2023 is that notice was issued to the respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 6/1, 8, 10, 11,12/1, 12/2, 13/1, 13/2 by registered post with acknowledgement due fixing 10.3.2022. The service report is that the respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 6/1, 8, 11,12/1, 13/1, 13/2 have refused to accept the registered notice. Further it is mentioned that with regard to the respondent nos. 10 and 12/2, neither the undelivered cover nor acknowledgement has been received yet. As such, notices on respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 6/1, 8, 10, 11,12/1, 12/2, 13/1, 13/2 are deemed sufficient.

2. Heard Shri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 15. Respondent no. 14 is represented by Shri H.N. Singh.

3. This writ petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 29.9.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue in restoration application bearing Case No. RES/1628/2021/Kanpur Dehat (Computerized Case No. AL20210340001628). Further direction has been sought to the respondent nos. 14 and 15 not to dispossess the petitioners from the leased land.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 25.9.1991, the Land Management Committee passed a resolution for allotment of land to the petitioners for agricultural purposes. The resolution was approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer and thereafter possession was given in December, 1994 by issuing a possession certificate. After two years of the allotment, a complaint was made under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 and a Case No. 176 of 1996 was registered by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Kanpur Dehat. Objections were filed by the petitioners whereafter order was issued for issuance of show cause notice to the allottees. The petitioners filed their objections on 16.3.2001 and 9.7.2001. The petitioners during pendency of the case moved an application on 28.11.2001 raising a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of the Additional District Magistrate to issue show cause notice and to try proceeding under Section 198 (4) of the Act of 1950. On 28.11.2001, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) rejected the preliminary objection of the petitioners. A revision was filed by the petitioners against the aforesaid order which was dismissed on 15.1.2002 by the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division on the ground that several references were made to the Board of Revenue on the same issue and it was for the petitioners to approach the Board of Revenue to seek remedy. By the order dated 23.1.2002, the Additional District Magistrate cancelled the lease of the petitioners.

5. The submission is that against the order dated 23.1.2002, seeking relief for staying the dispossession of the petitioners from the allotted land, a revision was filed under Section 333 of the Act, 1950, before the Board of Revenue. The Board summoned the records and issued notice to the opposite parties. The revision was dismissed in default on 23.10.2007 and after getting knowledge of that dismissal on 22.6.2009, a Restoration Application no. 49 of 2008-09 was filed on 22.6.2009. It is stated that several dates were fixed on the said restoration application which was dismissed in default by the order dated 23.5.2012. After obtaining knowledge of the aforesaid order dated 23.5.2012 from the village Pradhan, a restoration application for recalling the order dated 23.5.2012 along with a delay condonation application was filed on 24.8.2021 before the Bo