JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard.

2. Present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing impugned orders dated 26.03.2018 so far as it reates to the land in the name of petitioner's father Late Kewal Son of Kandhai having his half share contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition and order dated 28.12.2022 passed by opposite party No.2 in appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 26.03.2018, under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, contained as Annexure No.2 t this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to dispossess the petitioner from his aforesaid land of Gatas No. 248/0.4050 Hectare and Gata No.510/0.5950 Hectare, situated at Village-Thawar, Pargana, Tehsil and District-Lucknow forcefully, arbitrarily and illegally and to continue the name of the petitioner over the land of the both of these gatas."

3. It is submitted that the order dated 26.03.2018 was passed by the respondent No.4-Sub Divisional Magistrate/Joint Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow and the order dated 28.12.2022 was passed by the respondent No.2-Additional Commissioner, Administration, Lucknow Division, Lucknow.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2018, an appeal under Section 207 (2) of the Code of 2006 along with delay condonation application was filed. The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal was rejected vide order dated 28.12.2022 and consequently, the appeal was also rejected.

5. Main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that in exercise of power conferred under Section 104 /105 of the Code of 2006, respondent No.4-Sub Divisional Magistrate/Joint Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow is not empowered to pass the order of such nature, which was impugned in the appeal. Moreover, the order was passed behind back of the petitioner and on coming to know about the same, petitioner preferred an appeal along with the application for condonation of delay, which was filed with proper explanation, however, respondent No.2-Additional Commissioner, Administration, Lucknow Division, Lucknow failed to appreciate the facts indicated in the application for condonation of delay and rejected the application, thus, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter.

6. Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State very fairly stated that in similar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court interfered in the impugned order(s).

7. In continuation, it is stated that challenging the order dated 26.03.2018, one Musahib filed Writ Petition bearing No.26946 (M/S) of 2021 (Musahib v. State of U.P. & Others), which was allowed vide order dated 22.11.2021 by this Court. Assailing the order dated 26.03.2018, another Writ Petition bearing No.29507 (M/S) of 2021 (Rais Ahmad & Another v. State of U.P. & Others) was also filed, which was also allowed vide order dated 16.12.2021 by this Court. Copies of the judgment(s) placed before this Court are taken on record.

8. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned order(s).

9. Admittedly, respondent No.4-Sub Divisional Magistrate/Joint Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow has no power under Section 104 /105 of the Code of 2006 to pass the order impugned in the present petition. By the impugned order, respondent No.4-Sub Divisional Magistrate/Joint Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow directed the revenue official to delete the name of the petitioner and ordered vesting of land in issue in favour of the Government. It is stated that considering the powers of respondent No.4-Sub Divisional Magistrate/Joint Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow under Section 104 /105 of the Code of 2006, this Court has interfered in the order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the respondent No.4-Sub Divisional Magistrate/Joint Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow. The re