The Board of Revenue correctly upheld agricultural allotments following proper procedures, and significant delays in filing petitions do not warrant judicial intervention.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for respondent no.4/9, Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for respondent-Gram Sabha and Mr. Arunesh Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Common issues are involved in both the aforementioned writ petition, as such, both the writ petitions are clubbed and heard together.

3. Stamp Reporter has reported laches of 1654 days in filing the Writ B No. 442 of 2025 as well as Writ B No. 444 of 2025.

4. Petitioner has explained the laches in para Nos. 21 to 27 of the writ petition which is not satisfactory but in place of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches, the matter should be decided on merit.

5. Brief facts of the case are that the agriculture lease was executed in favour of respondent second set on 6.5.1999 which was approved by Sub Divisional Officer on 15.6.1999. Petitioner and the proforma respondents have filed a complaint on 10.7.2001 challenging the allotment made by Land Management Committee on 6.5.1999/ 15.6.1999 in favour of respondent second set. The aforementioned complaint was registered as case No. 16 of 2001-02 (Computerized case No. D200518020016 and case No. 16 of 2001-02. Notice was issued to the allottees on 18.11.2002 by the respondent no.2/Additional Collector Judicial Aligarh. Allottees have filed their objection stating that allotment was made after following the due procedure prescribed under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. A report was submitted by the authorities on 20.8.2002/ 17.5.2003. Respondent no.2, Additional Collector vide order dated 8.6.2018 cancelled the allotment made by Land Management Committee dated 6.5.1999/ 17.12.1999/ 15.6.1999. Against the order dated 8.6.2018, allottees filed revision before the Board of Revenue which was registered as revision No. 1555 of 2018, Computerized case No. AL20181802001555 as well as revision No. 522 of 2020, Computerized case No. AL2020180200522 respondent no.1/ Board of Revenue vide order dated 23.4.2020 allowed both the revisions setting aside the order dated 8.6.2018 hence Writ B No. 442 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/complainant after about five years (1654 days) for the following relief:-

"To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgement and order dated 23.4.2020 passed by Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Prayagraj, the respondent no.1 in Revision No. 522 of 2020 (Computer Case No. AL2020180200522) Kamal Singh Vs. Santosh Kumar and Others."

6. Writ B No. 444 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of petitioner/ complainant after about five years (1654 days) for the following relief:-

"To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgement and order dated 23.4.2020 passed by Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Prayagraj, the respondent no.1 in Revision No. 1555 of 2018 (Computer Case No. AL20181802001555) Smt. Maya Devi and Others Vs. Santosh Kumar and Others."

7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that lease was not executed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, as such, on the basis of complaint filed by petitioner along with proforma respondents, Additional Collector has rightly cancelled the lease executed in favour of allottees and directed to record the plot in question as Gaon Sabha plot. He further submitted that Board of Revenue has exceeded his revisional jurisdiction in setting aside the order passed by Additional Collector