JUDGMENT

Rajnish Kumar, J.

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.

2. Heard Ms. Akanksha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

3. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.12.1992 passed by the Assistant Collector First Class, Balia and the order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow in Revision/919/2013, by means of which the revision has been dismissed being barred by delay. Consequently this petition.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the brother of the petitioner was doing the pairvi of the case before the Assistant Collector, in which the order was passed on 24.12.1992, but the petitioner had no knowledge of the said order as it was not informed to the petitioner and the petitioner is still in possession of the land in dispute. On coming to know about the aforesaid order in the month of December, 2022 after inspection of the file, the petitioner filed the revision along with application for condonation of delay, which has wrongly been rejected being time barred, whereas, there is no intentional and deliberate delay by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Sakuntala v. State of Karnataka and others (Civil Appeal Nos.1061-1062 of 2019) decided on 28.04.2023 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, while opposing the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has failed to give any sufficient explanation for delay in filing the revision, therefore, the revision has rightly been dismissed. Even otherwise, the petitioner has failed to substantiate his right on the land in dispute. The petition has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds, which is liable to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records.

7. On an application moved by one Shiv Pujan and Sita Ram s/o Ganesh Yadav on 05.07.1991 claiming their rights over the land No.75 and 91 of Village- Navanagar, Pargana and DistrictBalia on the ground that they are in possession on the same since prior to the abolition of the zamindari, the proceedings were instituted. After calling the report from the Tehshildar, who admitted the possession of Shiv Pujan on some part of the land, the order dated 24.12.1992 was passed. During the aforesaid proceedings an objection was filed by one Kamal Dev Chaubey claiming his right on some part of the land in dispute on the ground that he along with others is in possession of the land in dispute since long time and they are using the same as their sahan as their houses situated in front of the said land. The objection filed by Kamal Dev was rejected by means of the aforesaid order dated 24.12.1992 on the ground that he may institute the appropriate regular proceedings and claim right on the land in dispute.

8. It has also been noted in the aforesaid order that Kamal Dev has also claimed that the suit under Section 229B is pending for consideration before the appropriate Court. It appears that after passing of the aforesaid order dated 24.12.1992, neither the same was challenged nor regular proceedings were instituted by Kamal Dev or the petitioner. The petitioner, claiming right on the basis of his application, filed a highly time barred revision before the Board of Revenue under Section 333 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, which has been dismissed being time barred by means of the order dated 24.04.2023. The said order along with order dated 24.12.1992 has been assailed in this petition.

9. The only ground ta