JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondent. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the basic year of the consolidation operation, plots of khata no.35, was recorded in the name of Jamuna Prasad, son of Govind. At the time of verification of the khatauni, Om Kumari and Krishnawati, being widows of Jamuna Prasad, were told to be recorded. During consolidation operation, Om Kumari and Krishnawati filed their objection that their name be recorded jointly over the plots of khata no.35. The Assistant Consolidation Officer on 2.3.1988 referred the matter before the Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 15.3.1988, ordered to record the name of Om Kumari and Krishnawati jointly, being the widows of Late Jamuna Prasad and further ordered to expunge the name of Jamuna Prasad from the plots of khata no.35. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 15.3.1988, Naresh Pal and others have filed appeal along with prayer for condonation of delay before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) vide order dated 27.11.2004, set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 15.3.1988 and ordered to record the names of Naresh Pal and Ved Pal, on the basis of unregistered will deed. Against the appellate order dated 27.11.2004, Om Kumari and Others filed revision being Revision No.247 and Surendra & Others have filed revision being Revision No.290 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned revisions were heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and vide order dated 25.1.2007, both the aforementioned revisions were allowed, setting aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 27.11.2004 and remanded the matter back before the appellate court to decide the appeal along with the pending appeal filed by Surendra. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 30.7.2008 dismissed the appeal filed by Surendra for want of evidence and appeal filed by Naresh Pal and Others were allowed, remanding the matter before the Consolidation Office to decide the dispute afresh on merit. Against the order of the appellate court dated 30.7.2008, Om Kumari has filed revision being Revision No. 203 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Against the order of the appellate court dated 30.7.2008, Om Kumari has filed revision being Revision No. 203 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned Revision No.203 was heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the same was allowed vide order dated 13.3.2009, setting aside the orders dated 30.7.2008 and 27.11.2004 and ordered to record the names of Krishnawati and Om Kumari, being widows of Jamuna Prasad. One Kalawati filed restoration application against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13.3.2009 and Revision No.173 against the orders dated 15.3.1988 and 7.3.2011, passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as 30.10.2012, passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, praying that her name be recorded being daughter of Jamuna Prasad. In the mutation proceeding under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Act, the Naib Tehsildar passed an order dated 23.4.2010 for recording the name of will holder, on the basis of registered will deed dated 2.2.1992, alleged to be executed by Om Kumari and Krishnawati in favour of Meena Kumari, wife of Mulayam Singh (daughter of Om Kumari). Against the order of mutation, appeal was filed which was allowed on 30.7.2010 and the matter was remanded back before the Naib Tehsildar. The Naib Tehsildar again on 30.4.2011, ordered to record the name of Meena Kumari, on the basis of registered will deed dated 2.2.1992. Krishnawati and Meena Kumari were alleged to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner (H.K.S. Developers Pvt. Ltd.) on 26.4.2010. Kalawati was alleged to execute the power of attorney in favour of Surendra Singh, son of Brahm Singh on 13.4.2011 which was later on cancelled on 5.9.2012. Kalawati is alleged to execute the agreement to sale dated 15.10.2010 in favour of Rajiv Kumar. Jamuna Prasad was a Class-IV employee in the Nagar Nigam, Bareilly. It has been alleged that Jamuna Prasad had three wives, Om Kumari, Krishnawati and Ramdeyi. From the wedlock of Jamuna Prasad and Ramdei, one daughter Kalawati was born and from wedlock of Jamuna Prasad and Om Kumari, Meena Kumar was born. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 17.4.2013 allowed the Revision No.203, filed by Om Kumari and Revision No.173 filed by Kalawati and ordered to record the name of Krishnawati, Om Kumari and Ramdeyi, being widows of late recorded tenure holder Jamuna Prasad. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 17.4.2013 allowed the Revision No.203, filed by Om Kumari and Revision No.173 filed by Kalawati and ordered to record the name of Krishnawati, Om Kumari and Ramdeyi, being widows of late recorded tenure holder Jamuna Prasad. The revisional court further ordered to record the name of Meena Kumari and Kalawati, daughter of Jamuna Prasad, to be recorded in place of deceased Om Kumari and Ramdeyi. The revisional court further ordered that the partition of the plots of khata except the chakoutplots shall be made 1/3rd, 1/3rd & 1/3rd in respect of Krishnawati, Meena Kumari and Kalawati, the appellate order dated 27.11.2004, passed in Appeal No.145/2004 and 30.7.2008 were accordingly set aside. Against the order dated 17.4.2013, Writ B No. 48903/2013 was filed by Smt. Kalawati, Writ B No.26659/2013 was filed by Smt. Meena Kumari and Another and Writ B No.26674/2013 was also filed by Meena Kumari and Another in the year 2013 before this Court. All the three writ petitions remained pending for about 2 years and during pendency of the aforementioned three writ petitions, parties have entered into compromise and on the basis of compromise, the parties have filed application for dismissing the writ petitions as withdrawn. This Court vide order dated 11.5.2015 dismissed the writ petitions as withdrawn, affirming the order of revisional court / Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17.4.2013. After disposal of the aforesaid three writ petitions, petitioner filed the application dated 18.6.2018 before the revisional court to recall the order dated 17.4.2013 and restore the revision to its original number in order to afford opportunity to petitioner being the vendee of the part of the area of the plot in dispute. The revisional court / Additional district Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) vide order dated 7.6.2019 rejected the restoration / recall application dated 18.6.2018, hence this writ petition. 3. This Court vide order dated 28.9.2021 has entertained the writ petition and granted an interim protection. The order dated 28.9.2021 runs as follows:- 1. Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel represents responded nos. 1 & 2 and perused the record. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Jamuna Prasad was recorded tenure holder over the property in question. The order dated 28.9.2021 runs as follows:- 1. Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel represents responded nos. 1 & 2 and perused the record. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Jamuna Prasad was recorded tenure holder over the property in question. Names of Om Kumari (mother of respondent no.4) and Krishnawati were ordered to be mutated in place of Jamuna Prasad, being his widows vide order dated 15.03.1988 passed by Consolidation Officer. At later stage, due to intervention of Naresh Pal, Ved Pal, Surendra, matter was travelled up to revisional stage and culminated vide order dated 13.03.2009 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no.2) in favour of Om Kumari and Krishnawati. On the death of Om Kumari, name of her daughter Smt. Meena Kumari (respondent no.4) has been ordered to be mutated, vide order dated 23.04.2010, on the basis of registered will deed dated 02.02.1992. On appeal being filed, matter was remitted and again decided in favour of respondent no.4 vide order dated 30.04.2011 passed by Nayab Tehsildar. In the meantime respondent no.4 and Krishnawati had executed a resisted sale deed dated 26.04.2010 in favour of the petitioner. 3. At very belated stage Smt. Kalawati (respondent no.3), claiming her right and title being daughter of Ram Devi (weeded wife of Jamuna Prasad), has filed restoration application dated 31.08.2010 against the order dated 15.03.1988 passed by Consolidation Officer, which was rejected by order dated 17.10.2011 and, in appeal, same was affirmed vide order dated 30.10.2012 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 4. Having being aggrieved, respondent no.3 has filed Revision No.173 against the order dated 30.10.2012 as well as restoration application dated 22.11.2012/ 01.12.2012 against the order dated 13.03.2009 passed in Revision No.203, which had been filed by Om Kumari and Krishnawati. 5. By common order dated 17.04.2013, respondent no.3 has allowed the restoration application as well as both the revisions and directed to record the name of respondent no.3 alongwith the name of respondent no.4 and Krishnawati, having 1/3 share each. Restoration application filed by the petitioners against the order dated 17.04.2013 is rejected by impugned order dated 07.06.2019. 6. 5. By common order dated 17.04.2013, respondent no.3 has allowed the restoration application as well as both the revisions and directed to record the name of respondent no.3 alongwith the name of respondent no.4 and Krishnawati, having 1/3 share each. Restoration application filed by the petitioners against the order dated 17.04.2013 is rejected by impugned order dated 07.06.2019. 6. Grievance of the petitioner is as follows:- i. Respondent no.2 has illegally allowed the restoration application, delay condonation application and revision no.203 as well as revision no.173 simultaneously by common order dated 17.04.2013 without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who is a vitally interested person in the property in question on the basis of sale deed dated 26.04.2010 and deserves to be heard in opposition to the restoration application and revision. ii. Respondent no.2 has illegally admitted the additional evidence at the revisional stage without giving opportunity of rebuttal and has illegality recognized the right and title of respondent no.3, being a daughter of Jamuna Prasad & Ram Devi on the basis of Photostat copy of the documents which are not admissible in evidence. Apart from that police report can not be a conclusive proof to established relationship of the daughter and father. iii. No cogent reason has been assigned by respondent no.3 in keeping mum, since 15.03.1988 till August-2010, as to why she could not get her right and title adjudicated upon by the competent court being a daughter of Jamuna Prasad and approached the consolidation court after several years of de-notification under section 52(1) of UPCH Act. iv. Restoration application moved by the petitioner has illegally be rejected on the ground that petitioner has purchased property during the succession/mutation case of Jamuna Prasad, whereas succession of Jamuna Prasad had already been decided vide order dated 13.03.2009 passed by respondent no.2. In the year 2010 name of respondent no.4 was mutated in place of her mother Smt. Om Kumari. Even otherwise, restoration application dated 31.08.2010 and another restoration application dated 22.11.2012/ 01.12.2012 were field after sale deed dated 26.04.2010. v. Revision No.173 was arising out of rejection of the restoration application dated 31.08.2010, but the same has illegally been allowed without discussing the merits of the restoration application. 7. Matter requires consideration. 8. Issue notice to the respondent nos.3 to 5, returnable at an early date. 9. List this matter on 24.11.2021. 10. v. Revision No.173 was arising out of rejection of the restoration application dated 31.08.2010, but the same has illegally been allowed without discussing the merits of the restoration application. 7. Matter requires consideration. 8. Issue notice to the respondent nos.3 to 5, returnable at an early date. 9. List this matter on 24.11.2021. 10. In the meantime, parties are directed to exchange their respective affidavits. 11. Until further orders of this Court, effect and operation of the orders dated 17.04.2013 and 07.06.2019, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidations, Annexure Nos.7 and 20 respectively, shall remain stayed. 4. In pursuance of the order dated 28.9.2021 passed by this court, respondent no.3 has put in appearance and filed a recall application, recalling the order dated 28.9.2021. Respondent no.3 also filed a S.L.P. No.5881/2022 before the Hon’ble Apex Court against the interim order dated 28.9.2021, The Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 8.4.2022 disposed of the S.L.P., directing this Court to decide the main writ petition along with recall / stay vacation application within 8 weeks. 5. In compliance of the order of Hon’ble Apex Court dated 8.4.2022, the matter was nominated to another court by Hon’ble Chief Justice but the same was released by earlier court, as such, Hon’ble Chief Justice vide order dated 28.3.2023 has nominated the matter to this Court for disposal in pursuance of the order of Hon’ble Apex Court. This matter was listed on several dates but on the request of counsel for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned, accordingly, the matter could not be heard and disposed of within time limit fixed by Hon’ble Apex Court however matter has been heard finally on 2.8.2023. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner, on the basis of the sale deed dated 26.4.2010, executed in his favour, is entitled to be impleaded and heard in the proceeding, under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act. He further submitted that recall / restoration application filed by the petitioner, has been rejected by the Additional District Magistrate/revisional court illegally / arbitrarily. It is further submitted that the order dated 17.4.2013 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the revisions filed by Om Kumari and Kalawati is ex parte, as such, the order dated 17.4.2013 was liable to be recalled at the instance of the petitioner but the application filed by the petitioner has been rejected in arbitrary manner. It is further submitted that the order dated 17.4.2013 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the revisions filed by Om Kumari and Kalawati is ex parte, as such, the order dated 17.4.2013 was liable to be recalled at the instance of the petitioner but the application filed by the petitioner has been rejected in arbitrary manner. He also submitted that the Addl. District Magistrate has wrongly held that the sale deed of the petitioner is during pendency of the proceeding, as such, petitioner is not entitled to be heard in the proceeding. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2013 SC 2389 , Thomson Press (India) Ltd. vs. Nanak Builders and Investors P. Ltd. and Others in order to demonstrate that transferee pendente lite is entitled to be impleaded in the proceeding as the interest has been devolved upon the transferee on the basis of the sale deed, being the bonafide purchaser of the plot in dispute. He also submitted that the impugned orders be set aside and the petitioners should be afforded opportunity of hearing before passing the final order in respect to the plot in dispute. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Punit Kumar Gupta, appearing for respondent no.3 submitted that writ petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 17.4.2013, is not maintainable in view of the provision contained under Chapter 22 Rule 1 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. He further submitted that the earlier writ petitions filed by the tenure holder against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17.4.2013, were dismissed as withdrawn, on the basis of compromise, taken place between the tenure holders, as such, the petitioner has no right to file recall/restoration application against the order dated 17.4.2013 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation as the order dated 17.4.2013, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation has attained finality due to disposal of the writ petitions filed by the tenure holders against the order dated 17.4.2013. He also submitted that answering respondent is in peaceful possession of the area and khasra no. 355 and the allegation of the petitioner that petitioner is in peaceful possession of the entire area of khasra no.355 is wrong. He further submitted that there is inter-se dispute between the predecessor-in-interest Kalawati and Meena Kumari as well as the petitioner. He also submitted that answering respondent is in peaceful possession of the area and khasra no. 355 and the allegation of the petitioner that petitioner is in peaceful possession of the entire area of khasra no.355 is wrong. He further submitted that there is inter-se dispute between the predecessor-in-interest Kalawati and Meena Kumari as well as the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner purchased the property during the pendency of the proceeding in the year 2010 while the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed the final order dated 17.4.2013, declaring 1/3rd, 1/3rd and 1/3rd share to the tenure holders, as such, petitioner cannot claim any right and title on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed on 26.4.2010. It is further submitted that the sale deed alleged to be executed in favour of petitioner on 26.4.2010, was not registered upto 7.10.2014, as such, there was no occasion at all by the revisional court to consider the claim of the petitioner, on the basis of unregistered sale deed. He further submitted that the revisional court has decided the dispute finally on 17.4.2013, as such, the sale deed alleged to be registered on 7.10.2014 will not give any right to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the revisional court has rightly decided the dispute vide order dated 17.4.2013. It is further submitted that during pendency of the writ petition before this Court against the order dated 17.4.2013, an amicable settlement has taken place between Meena Kumari, Krishnawati, Kalawati, Roopram and on the basis of settlement/ compromise, the writ petitions filed against the order dated 17.4.2013 were dismissed as withdrawn, affirming the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17.4.2013. It is further submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and interim order dated 28.9.2021 is liable to be vacated. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court, reported in 2022 AIR (Ald.) 279, Prayas Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Planning and Others, in order to demonstrate that the subsequent writ petition on the same cause of action will not be maintainable. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. There is no dispute about the fact that the title revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by parties to the title revision was decided vide order dated 17.4.2013, passed by the Additional District Magistrate/Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision Nos. 203 & 173, by which 1/3rd, 1/3rd & 1/3rd share given to the parties. There is also no dispute about the fact that writ petitions filed against the order dated 17.4.2013, were dismissed as withdrawn, on the basis of compromise filed in the pending writ petition. There is also no dispute about the fact that recall/restoration application filed by the petitioner on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed on 26.4.2010 and registered on 7.10.2014, before the revisional court, against the order dated 17.4.2013, has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 7.6.2019. 10. It is material that consolidation dispute relating to title arisen in the year 1988 in respect to the holdings of Jamuna Prasad, was contested and ultimately the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 17.4.2013 decided the title dispute among the tenure holders, giving 1/3rd share each to them. It is also material that the writ petitions filed, challenging the order dated 17.4.2013, was decided by this Court 11.5.2015, on the basis of amicable settlement, took place among the tenure holders, giving the finality to the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17.4.2013. 11. Since the order dated 17.4.2013 has been maintained by this Court, while dismissing the writ petitions as withdrawn, as such, petitioner is not entitled to file recall / restoration application after 5 years before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to recall the order and afford opportunity to the petitioner, on the basis of unregistered sale deed, alleged to be executed on 26.4.2010 and subsequently registered on 7.10.2014. The Additional District Magistrate/revisional court while rejecting the petitioner’s recall/restoration application vide order dated 7.6.2019, has recorded finding that petitioner has no right to file recall application, being transferee pendente lite. 12. The finding recorded by the Addl. The Additional District Magistrate/revisional court while rejecting the petitioner’s recall/restoration application vide order dated 7.6.2019, has recorded finding that petitioner has no right to file recall application, being transferee pendente lite. 12. The finding recorded by the Addl. District Magistrate while rejecting the petitioner’s restoration application vide order dated 7.6.2019 will be relevant for perusal which is as under:- eSus fo}ku vf/koäkvksa }kjk ÁLrqr rdksZa ds ifjÁs{; esa i=koyh ij miyC/k vfHkys[kks dk ifj'khyu o ijh{k.k fd;kA fo}ku vf/koäkvksa }kjk ÁLrqr rdksZa rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k Ái=ksa ls ;g rF; Li"V gksrk gS fd oknkUrxZr Hkwfe xkVk la[;k 355 ds ewy dk'rdkj tequk Álkn ds mrjkf/kdkj fu/kkZj.k gsrq okn dh fujUrjrk esa Jherh dykorh o vksedqekjh }kjk fnukad 26-04-2010 dks iquZLFkkiu ÁkFkhZ ds i{k esa foØ; i= dk fu"iknu fd;k x;k FkkA Li"Vr% foØ; i= Pendentelite gksus dh n'kk esa iquZLFkkiu ÁkFkhZ dks Pendentelite Øsrk ds vf/kdkj gh ÁkIr gksrs gSA ;g Hkh Áklafxd gS fd fdlh Hkh Øsrk dks vius foØsrk ds vf/kdkjh ls vf/kd vf/kdkj ÁkIr ugha gks ldrsA mi lapkyd pdcUnh ds le{k fuxjkuh ds fuLrkj.k esa iquZLFkkiu ÁkFkhZ ds foØsrk Jherh dykorh o vksedqekjh i{k Fks rFkk mDr foØsrk i{kksa dks lquokà o lk{; dk volj fn;s tkus ds mijkUr gh vkns'k fnukad 17-04-2013 ikfjr fd;k x;kA mDr fLFkfr esa vkns'k fnukad 17-04-2013 dks ,d i{kh; vkns'k vo/kkfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA rnuqlkj mijksDr foospuk ds Øe esa iquZLFkkiu ÁkFkZuk i= fnukad 18-06-2018 lkjghu gksus dh fLFkfr esa fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vLrq iquZLFkkiu i= fnukad 18-06-2018 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA fnukad 07@06@2019 ¼eukst dqekj ik.Ms;½ vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼foå@jkå½ cjsyhA 13. Considering the finding recorded by the Addl. District Magistrate/revisional court, there is no scope for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the petitioner as petitioner is claiming right on the basis of unregistered deed, alleged to be executed on 26.4.2010, which was registered in the year 2014, i.e., after the date of decision the title dispute by the revisional court. 14. Once the title dispute under the U.P. C.H. Act, at the instance of the tenure holders claiming right from the recorded tenure holders, has attained finality, the petitioner cannot reopen the matter after such a long period, on the basis of sale-deed which was unregistered on the date of decision of revision vide order dated 17.4.2013. 14. Once the title dispute under the U.P. C.H. Act, at the instance of the tenure holders claiming right from the recorded tenure holders, has attained finality, the petitioner cannot reopen the matter after such a long period, on the basis of sale-deed which was unregistered on the date of decision of revision vide order dated 17.4.2013. It is also material that dispute against the basic year entry was going on for more than 25 years and the same has attained finality in the year 2013, as such, the recall/restoration filed by the petitioner on 8.6.2018 to reopen the title proceeding further, has been rightly refused by the Addl. District Magistrate while passing the order dated 10.4.2019. 15. The case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances mentioned above. 16. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the finding recorded by the Addl. District Magistrate, while rejecting the recall/restoration application, filed by the petitioner, no interference is required in the matter. 17. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim order granted on 28.9.2021 stands vacated. 18. All the pending applications in the writ petition stand disposed of.