Sanjeet Singh And 4 Others vs State Of Up And 12 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:103789
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a revision petition abates due to the death of the revisionist and no substitution application is filed within the prescribed period of limitation, a subsequent purchaser of the subject matter in dispute who had no knowledge of the pending revision may file a recall or review application, and such application shall be decided by the concerned authority in accordance with law after hearing all parties, notwithstanding the expiry of the limitation period for substitution.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent Gaon Sabha.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking following relief:
"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus pleased to command the respondent No. 2/The Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow, to consider and decide the review application no. 4631 of 2025, Computerized Case No. R20251359004631 (Sanjeet Singh and other Vs. Mahfooz Khan) filed U/s. 220, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, on 09.10.2025 in Revision No. 230 of 2021, Computerized Case No. R2021135900230 (Mahfooz Khan Vs. Masood Khan), U/s 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901, forthwith, within stipulated period as fixed by the Hon'ble Court."
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid revision was dismissed as having abated by the order of respondent no.2, dated 27.05.2025, as on the death of revisionist no substitution application had been filed. The petitioners are the purchasers of the land in dispute from the revisionist. As they had no knowledge about pendency of the aforesaid revision, as such, no substitution application could be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Petitioners moved a recall/review application in the aforesaid revision which is pending since 09.10.2025. As the contesting party is Gaon Sabha, which is already represented through its panel lawyer, the aforesaid recall/review application can be decided by the respondent no.2.
4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the aforesaid recall/review application shall be decided by the concerned authority, in accordance with law, expeditiously.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent no.2 to decide the aforementioned recall/review application filed by the petitioners, by passing appropriate order, in accordance with law, after hearing all the concerned parties, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
May 6, 2026
Ashok Kr.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free