The requirement of sufficient cause for condonation of delay is paramount, ensuring that established legal rights are not disturbed without compelling justification.

JUDGMENT :

SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

1. Heard Sri Vishal Khandelwal, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4, Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 and Sri Ajai Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.

2. Since the question involved is purely legal in nature, therefore, with the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is being decided at the admission stage itself.

Facts:-

3. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 4.11.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 in Revision No.86 of 2023 (Computerized No.AG202301010086) by way of which the remand order dated 19.4.2023 has been set aside. It is admitted between the parties that in proceedings under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 an order dated 26.11.2007 was passed in favour of the respondent no.6 and against which after more than 11 years a restoration application dated 23.6.2018 was filed by the State for recall of the order dated 26.11.2007 and similarly a restoration application dated 15.6.2018 was also filed by the petitioner for the recall of the very same order dated 26.11.2007, which was initially rejected vide order dated 29.1.2020 but subsequently the revision was allowed vide order dated 19.4.2023 and the matter was remanded back for fresh decision on the restoration application. It is against this order dated 19.4.2023 that a revision was filed before the Board of Revenue by respondent no.6 and vide order dated 4.11.2025 the said revision has been allowed, which is impugned to the present writ petition.

Arguments:-

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a report which was submitted by Naib Tehsildar was only with respect to plot no.25 and no measurements were made regarding plot no.75, which admittedly belongs to respondent no.6 and as per his claim; and which was reduced by merging a part of the area in plot no.75 to plot no. 25. He has attracted our attention to the said report to state that the area of plot no.25 was found to be 0.553 hectares and the same remain unchanged but still vide the order dated 26.11.2007 the area from plot no.25 was merged into plot no.75, whereby giving unwarranted benefit to respondent no.6.

5. Per contra Sri Ajai Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 has submitted that the report dated 20.9.2007 (annexure-3) clearly indicates that an area out of plot no.75 was taken out and merged into plot no.25 and further that the order dated 26.11.2007 was passed after hearing the State and being passed on the basis of the report dated 20.9.2007; and at the behest of the petitioner, the same cannot be re- agitated, as such the present petition not being in the nature of public interest litigation, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the said proceedings. He has further submitted that there are various criminal cases which are pending between the petitioner and respondent no.6, the details of which are given herein below:-

(i) Application U/S 482 No. 40621 of 2022, Prem Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another (S.T. No. 664 of 2018 (State Versus Jagvir and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 863 /2018, under Section 308, 506 IPC, Police Station- New Agra, District-Agra)

(ii) Application U/S 482 No. 4558 of 2024, Prem Singh and 6 others Vs. State of U.P. and others (S.T. N