Ravindra Nath Yadav D v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 7393 of 2026 Court No. - 4

HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. Heard Shri R.N. Yadav, the petitioner in person and Shri Dhananjay Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the entire proceedings of Case No. 6344 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. T202214360106344) (State of U.P. through Collector, Jaunpur Vs. Ram Surat and another).

3. Submission is that the orders were passed in favour of the petitioner in 1996, seeking recall whereof, recall application was filed by the State and Gaon Sabha in the year 2011, however, the same was dismissed for want of prosecution on 15.02.2018. Later on, after four years, another proceedings in the same form of recall were filed in 2022 and the order of 1996 was sought to be recalled without disclosing that previously instituted recall application had already been dismissed on 15.02.2018 nor was the order dated 15.02.2018 sought to be recalled. It is, therefore, contended that subsequent restoration/recall application being not maintainable, entire proceedings based thereupon which now stand transferred to other officer, are not maintainable and are liable to be quashed.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has produced instructions which indicate that restoration proceedings are pending before the Additional Sub- Divisional Officer-II, Jaunpur where the petitioner has every opportunity to file evidence etc.

5. Though vehement submissions have been made by the petitioner in Versus

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : In Person

Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C. Ravindra Nath Yadav D

.....Petitioner(s)

State Of U.P. And 4 Others

.....Respondent(s)

1

person that subsequent proceedings of recall are not maintainable, this Court, at this stage, cannot prejudge that the officer concerned will not take into consideration all aspects of the matter while deciding the second restoration application. As to whether the same is maintainable or whether cogent reasons have been indicated in the second restoration application in the given fact situation, has to be decided first at the level of the officer concerned and, in any case, if the order is passed either way, the aggrieved party would have remedy of approaching higher forum.

6. In view of the above discussion, the Court is not inclined to grant prayers made in the petition, however, the same stands disposed of with an observation that the pleas raised by the petitioner against the second restoration application shall be given due consideration by the officer concerned while deciding the matter.

July 22, 2026

AKShukla/- WRIC No. 7393 of 2026

2

(Kshitij Shailendra,J.)

2