JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Satish Mandhyan, for the contesting respondents. Instant writ petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Administration of Evacuee Property Act and has been filed challenging the orders dated 24.12.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing a restoration application filed by the petitioners, the order dated 14.9.2006 also passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the revision No. 2 of 2002-03 filed by the petitioners was ordered to abate on the repel of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act as also the order dated 6.9.1982 passed by the Assistant Custodian (Evacuee Property) in Case No. 8 of 1983. 2. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to a shop which is alleged to have been the property of one Mohd. Aktar who is said to have been migrated to the Pakistan. The petitioners are the heirs of one Atma Ram, who was the tenant of the shop. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that since Atma Ram was the tenant of the shop in question upon Mohd Akhtar, the owner, migrating to Pakistan and property therefore vesting in the Custodian, applied for the purchase of the shop in question. On the application aforesaid Atma Ram was ordered to deposit an amount by the Assistant Custodian, which was duly deposited. 4. Against this order, a revision was preferred before the Assistant Custodian General, U.P. who by his order dated 28.7.1983, set aside the order whereby Atma Ram was required to deposit some money and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Custodian. Thereafter various orders came to be passed in the matter and it ultimately traveled upto the Supreme Court. The Apex Court by its order dated 30.11.2000 allowed the Civil Appeal and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Custodian to decide it a fresh. 5. Upon remand, the Assistant Custodian by his order dated 6.9.2002 dismissed the application of Atma Ram. Against this order, a revision No. 02/2002-03 was filed by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue. This revision was admitted and a stay order was granted therein. 6. 5. Upon remand, the Assistant Custodian by his order dated 6.9.2002 dismissed the application of Atma Ram. Against this order, a revision No. 02/2002-03 was filed by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue. This revision was admitted and a stay order was granted therein. 6. During the pendency of the proceedings noticed above, it appears that respondent No. 3, Kewal Kishore claiming to be the owner of the shop in question, filed a Small Causes suit for eviction of Atma Ram on the ground of default in payment of rent. This suit filed by the Kewal Kishore was decreed and the eviction order passed against the Atma Ram was affirmed by the revisional Court while dismissing the revision on 22.8.1994. 7. On the strength of the interim order granted by the Board of Revenue in the revision filed by the petitioners arising out of proceedings under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, the decree in favour of Kewal Kishore, respondent No. 3 in the eviction suit could not be executed. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that his revision No. 02-2002-03 was ordered to abate on the repel of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act by the order dated 14.9.2006. The petitioners were not aware of this order as their Counsel never informed them about the same. In the year 2012, they received a notice of an execution case filed for execution of the eviction decree passed by the Judge Small Causes Court. They, therefore, made enquiries and on coming to know of the order dated 14.9.2006 abating their revision challenged the same by means of a writ petition. This writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 30.5.2013 directing the petitioners therein to file a restoration application before the Board of Revenue within a period of three weeks. 9. It has been contended that this revision was filed within the time specified but the same has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 24.12.2014 on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of three weeks granted by this Court. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has referred to averments made in paragraphs 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the writ petition to show that his restoration application have been filed within the time granted and that the Board of Revenue has wrongly rejected the same. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has referred to averments made in paragraphs 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the writ petition to show that his restoration application have been filed within the time granted and that the Board of Revenue has wrongly rejected the same. He has, therefore, prayed that the order passed by the Board of Revenue rejecting their restoration application as also the order abating their revision be set aside. 11. Insofar as the challenge to the order dated 14.9.2006 is concerned, Shri Ashish Kumar Singh has submitted that the Repeal Act, whereby the Administration of Evacuee Property Act was repealed, does not contain any saving clause. It is, therefore, his contention that in the absence of such a clause the provisions of section 6 of the General Clauses Act would be attracted and in view of the sub-section (e) thereof, the revision filed by the petitioners was required to be decided on its merits and the same was wrongly ordered to abate by the Board of Revenue. 12. Shri Satish Mandhyan, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent has urged that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He submits that he is not party to the proceedings under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and only the owner of the shop which is occupied by the petitioners. His suit for eviction has been decreed and such decree has became final, yet he was denied the fruits of this decree on account of the stay that was operating in the revision before the Board of Revenue. He has further submitted that the petitioners have been grossly negligent in prosecuting their revision which was rightly abated in the year 2006 and they took no proceedings in this regard till 2013. It was only when their eviction became imminent that they woke up and filed She writ petition followed by the restoration application. He has also submitted that Mohd Akhatar never migrated to Pakistan and in fact died in Hyderabad and, therefore, there was no question of property having been vested in the Custodian and that the entire theory of migration of Mohd Akhtar is bogus and an attempt to usurp the property which belongs to the respondent No. 5. 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 14. 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 14. There does not appear to be any dispute as regards the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the restoration application had been filed by them within the time granted by this Court vide order dated 30.5.2013 and, therefore, it appears that the restoration application has been wrongly dismissed. Even learned Counsel for the respondent has not been able to justify the order passed by the Board of Revenue. 15. Under the circumstances, therefore, the order dated 24.12.2014 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 16. Since the order dismissing the restoration application is being set aside, and the matter is being remanded back to the Board of Revenue for passing a fresh order on the restoration application, there appears no justification for considering the merits of the order dated 14.9.2006 whereby the revision of the petitioners was ordered to abate. All the submissions made in this regard may be made before the Board of Revenue itself and in case such submissions are made, they may be considered and decided by the Board of Revenue strictly in accordance with the law after hearing all concerned. 17. I, therefore set aside the order dated 24.12.2014 and allow the writ petition in part. The Board of Revenue is directed to consider the restoration application of the petitioners on its merits and to dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the, respondent No. 1. 18. It is further provided that the matter may be proceeded with without granting any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties. The respondent No. 1 may also proceed to hear the matter, in case necessity arises, on a day-today basis so as to pronounce final orders on the restoration application within the time specified above. Accordingly and subject to the, observations/directions above, this writ petition is allowed in part.