JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Heard Sri M.A. Qadeer learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. This petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 25.08.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2 and the order dated 04.09.2015 passed by the respondent no. 1. 3. The respondent no. 2 has allowed a restoration application filed by the respondents and has set aside the order dated 17.01.1978 passed in proceedings under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in favour of the petitioner. The consequential revision has been dismissed by the respondent no. 1, the Additional Commissioner, hence this writ petition. 4. The relevant facts are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act for demarcation. These proceedings were decided finally and it is alleged that boundary marks were erected on 05.05.1978. The opposite parties in the proceedings filed an appeal, which is stated to have been dismissed on 10.07.1979 and thereby the order passed in favour of the petitioner is stated to have attained finality. 5. It has been submitted that since the boundary marks erected in 1978 had worn out, the petitioner filed an application for renewal of the boundary marks at his own expenses. In pursuance of this application the boundary marks were renewed. Thereafter, the newly erected boundary marks are alleged to have been removed by respondents on 28.01.2015. In this regard the petitioner is stated to have made a complaint on 06.12.2015 whereon the respondent no. 2 directed that a First Information Report be lodged against the respondents. This F.I.R. was duly lodged on 25.05.2015. 6. On 02.06.2015 a complaint appears to have been made by the contesting respondent nos. 7 to 15 to the District Magistrate. 7. Two days later on 02.06.2015 the respondents filed an application for recall of the order dated 17.01.1978. This recall application which sought to recall an order passed about 37 years earlier, was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay and was duly supported by an affidavit. The petitioner filed his objection thereto on 03.07.2015. 8. The respondent no. 2, Sub Divisional Officer, by his order dated 25.08.2015 allowed the restoration application. This order was challenged by means of a revision which was dismissed vide order dated 09.04.2015. 9. The petitioner filed his objection thereto on 03.07.2015. 8. The respondent no. 2, Sub Divisional Officer, by his order dated 25.08.2015 allowed the restoration application. This order was challenged by means of a revision which was dismissed vide order dated 09.04.2015. 9. Sri M.A. Qadeer has submitted that there was absolutely no justification for the respondents to have filed the application for recall of the order dated 17.01.1978 as the same did not effect them in any way. This was the reason why they were not impleaded as parties in the proceedings under Section 41. The respondent no. 2 has wrongly allowed the recall application even though, the persons who had filed the recall application had no concern with the order that has been recalled. 10. The second submission made is that the recall application was highly belated and the same has been allowed without condoning the delay and therefore, the order is vitiated. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. 12. Perusal of the impugned orders indicates that the restoration application was filed by the contesting respondents alleging therein that the order dated 17.01.1978 was never given effect to on the spot. It was, for the first time, sought to be implemented on the spot by erection of boundary marks on the date it is alleged that the boundary marks were renewed on the application of the petitioner. Since the order was never implemented on the spot, the contesting respondents, the applicants before the court below, had no knowledge of the order. 13. In their restoration application they have categorically alleged that on account of demarcation carried out in pursuance of the order dated 17.01.1978, in the month of March, 2015, a substantial portion of Plot no. 925/8 area 0.668 hectares is being effected. Both the courts below have recorded a finding that the respondents are affected by the order dated 17.01.1978 and that it had been passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing to them. In view of the said findings returned concurrently by both the courts below I do not find any merit in the first submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. The only other point that requires consideration is as to whether the respondent no. In view of the said findings returned concurrently by both the courts below I do not find any merit in the first submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. The only other point that requires consideration is as to whether the respondent no. 2, Sub Divisional Officer was justified in allowing the restoration application without condoning the delay in filing the restoration application. Although this plea of the delay not having been condoned had been raised during the arguments, careful examination of the writ petition reveals that no such averment is contained therein. The order of the Sub Divisional Officer, respondent no. 2 which has been filed on record does not speak of condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. 15. However, it is clear from the record that a separate application for condonation of delay was filed and the same was duly supported by an affidavit. It is possible that the order for condonation of delay may have been passed on this application and the same may be a separate and distinct order. This is a probability and this probability is heightened by the fact that no averment has been made in the writ petition that the delay in filing the restoration application was not condoned. 16. Even otherwise, if such was the case, a specific plea in this regard must have been made in the revision filed by the petitioner. However, since the memo of revision is not available on record it is not possible for this court to ascertain as to whether this plea of limitation was taken before the revisional court or not. 17. However, from the perusal of the impugned order of the revisional court, it appears that this point has been argued, but in the absence of a categorical averment in the writ petition in this regard I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition on this technical plea alone. 18. Since both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings that the contesting respondents are being effected by the order passed in proceedings under Section 41, I do not see any illegality in the order whereby the recall application has been allowed. 19. 18. Since both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings that the contesting respondents are being effected by the order passed in proceedings under Section 41, I do not see any illegality in the order whereby the recall application has been allowed. 19. Even otherwise, the matter had merely been restored and the same shall be decided afresh after affording the parties every opportunity to adduce evidence and on the basis of the submissions that may be made by and on their behalf and therefore, it can be said that no serious prejudice is being caused to the petitioner by the impugned orders. 20. Accordingly and for the reasons given, I do not find any good ground for interfering with the impugned orders. 21. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed.