##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 41895 of 2025

Nashim Khan And 4 Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Commissioner Muradabad Division Muradabad

And 6 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh, Ram Mangal

Singh

Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 40

HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

1. It is informed by learned standing counsel that despite a letter being

sent to the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad on two

occasions, no instructions have been received till date.

2. Under the circumstances, the Court deems it appropriate to hear the

matter on the application for interim relief.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel

for the State.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Sub

Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Chandausi, District-Sambhal vide the

judgment and order dated 12.09.2024 passed in proceedings under

Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, had passed a preliminary

decree. The preliminary decree so passed was amended by order dated

28.09.2024. The respondent no. 3 being aggrieved by the order dated

12.09.2024 had filed an appeal under Section 207 of U.P. Revenue Code,

2006 before the Commissioner, Moradabad and the same was registered

as Case No. 2363 of 2024. The appeal filed by the respondent no.3 was

dismissed vide order dated 17.12.2024 after hearing the respondent no. 3

at the admission stage itself with the finding that there is no legal

infirmity in the order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the lower court.

5. It is stated that after the appeal was dismissed on merits, an application

WRIC No. 41895 of 2025

2

for restoration was filed by the respondent no. 3 on 15.01.2025. The

application for restoration was allowed by the respondent no. 1 vide order

dated 13.05.2025 and the order dated 17.12.2024 was recalled.

Thereafter, by means of the impugned order dated 13.10.2025, the

respondent no. 1 had disposed of the appeal and stayed the operation of

the order dated 12.09.2024 as amended by the order dated 28.09.2024.

6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that once the respondent no.

1 had passed the final order on merits of the appeal on 17.12.2024, it was

no longer open for him to review the order dated 17.12.2024 and pass a

fresh order dated 13.10.2025, thereby disposing of the appeal. It is further

contended that there is no power of review vested in the Commissioner

under the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and it is only the

Board that can review its order under Section 211 of the U.P. Revenue

Code, 2006.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that unless the

respondent no. 1 was not specifically vested with the power of review

under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, it was not open for him to review the

order dated 17.12.2024 by means of which the appeal had been dismissed

on merits after hearing the respondent no. 3 and pass the impugned order

dated 13.10.2025.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed

by this Court in the case of Smt. Shivraji and others Vs. Dy. Director of

Consolidation, Allahabad and others, reported in 1997 (88) RD 562

9. Prima-facie, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of interim

order.

10. Matter requires consideration.

11. Issue notice to the respondent nos. 3 to 7 returnable at an early date.

12. Steps for service of notice be taken within a week.

13. The respondents are granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit.

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

WRIC No. 41895 of 2025

3

14. List after expiry of the aforesaid period.

15. Till the next date of listing, the operation of the impugned order dated

13.10.2025 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Appeal No. 119 of 2025

(Yusuf Khan Vs. Safdar Khan and others) shall remain stayed.

(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.)

January 29, 2026

Arif

Digitally signed by :-

MOHAMMAD ARIF

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad