A highly time-barred restoration application, in the absence of an interim stay, cannot be used to indefinitely stall the implementation of a final order in revenue proceedings.

1. Heard Mr. Firdos Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Mr. Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the respondent no.3/Consolidation Officer, Padrauna, Kushinagar to get the approval/sanction for issuing Parvana for Amaldaramad (Implementation) of Arazi No.344/.52 hectare and Arązi no.690/.69 hectare (Gram Sabha Land) situated at Village Turkaha, Tehsil Padrauna, District Kushinagar in the name of petitioner in revenue record in pursuance of order dated 10.01.2017 and 19.05.2017 under Rule 109 U.P.C.H. Rules in Case No.58II/2016-17 (Vishwakarma Vs. case Land Management Committee) from respondent no.2.

(b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the respondent no.3 to consider the misc. application dated 05.04.2024 in case no.58II/2016-17 (Vishwakarma Vs. Land Management Committee) U/s 109 A U.P.C.H. Act, within stipulated period."

3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. C.H. Act"), an order was passed for recording the name of predecessor of the petitioners over the plot in question vide order dated 20.9.1986 which has attained finality. He submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 20.9.1986, proceeding under Rule 109 -A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. C.H. Rules") was initiated, in which report was submitted to the effect that in pursuance of the order passed in the proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act, the name of the petitioners' predecessors are entitled to be recorded over the plot in question. He submitted that after filing of the instant petition, a recall application along with prayer for condonation of delay has been filed by the State against the order dated 20.9.1986, as mentioned in the instruction dated 19.3.2026, sent by the Consolidation Officer, Padrauna, Kushinagar, which is already on record. He submitted that filing of highly time-barred recall/restoration application by the State even after the knowledge of the order dated 20.9.1986, is abuse of process of law. He also submitted that vide order dated 10.1.2017, passed by the Consolidation Officer, Padrauna, Kushinagar, a parwana amaldaramad was issued in the proceeding under Rule 109 -A of the U.P. C.H. Rules for recording the name of the petitioners' predecessor which is annexed along with the instruction as Annexure No.2. He submitted that recall application has also been filed by the State against the order dated 10.1.2017, passed under Rule 109 -A of the U.P. C.H. Rules. He submitted that no interim order is operating against the order dated 20.9.1986, as such, the order dated 20.9.1986 should be given effect in the proceeding under Rule 109 -A of the U.P. C.H. Rules. He also submitted that the order of parwana amaldaramad dated 10.1.2017, issued by the Consolidation Officer, should be given effect in the records forthwith which shall be subject to the final adjudication of the dispute in the proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act.

4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for state-respondents and the learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha submitted that recall applications against the ord