JUDGMENT Jayant Banerji, J. The office report of 5.4.2023 is that notice was issued to the respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 6/1, 8, 10, 11,12/1, 12/2, 13/1, 13/2 by registered post with acknowledgement due fixing 10.3.2022. The service report is that the respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 6/1, 8, 11,12/1, 13/1, 13/2 have refused to accept the registered notice. Further it is mentioned that with regard to the respondent nos. 10 and 12/2, neither the undelivered cover nor acknowledgement has been received yet. As such, notices on respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 6/1, 8, 10, 11,12/1, 12/2, 13/1, 13/2 are deemed sufficient. 2. Heard Shri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 15. Respondent no. 14 is represented by Shri H.N. Singh. 3. This writ petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 29.9.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue in restoration application bearing Case No. RES/1628/2021/Kanpur Dehat (Computerized Case No. AL20210340001628). Further direction has been sought to the respondent nos. 14 and 15 not to dispossess the petitioners from the leased land. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 25.9.1991, the Land Management Committee passed a resolution for allotment of land to the petitioners for agricultural purposes. The resolution was approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer and thereafter possession was given in December, 1994 by issuing a possession certificate. After two years of the allotment, a complaint was made under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 and a Case No. 176 of 1996 was registered by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Kanpur Dehat. Objections were filed by the petitioners whereafter order was issued for issuance of show cause notice to the allottees. The petitioners filed their objections on 16.3.2001 and 9.7.2001. The petitioners during pendency of the case moved an application on 28.11.2001 raising a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of the Additional District Magistrate to issue show cause notice and to try proceeding under Section 198(4) of the Act of 1950. On 28.11.2001, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) rejected the preliminary objection of the petitioners. The petitioners during pendency of the case moved an application on 28.11.2001 raising a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of the Additional District Magistrate to issue show cause notice and to try proceeding under Section 198(4) of the Act of 1950. On 28.11.2001, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) rejected the preliminary objection of the petitioners. A revision was filed by the petitioners against the aforesaid order which was dismissed on 15.1.2002 by the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division on the ground that several references were made to the Board of Revenue on the same issue and it was for the petitioners to approach the Board of Revenue to seek remedy. By the order dated 23.1.2002, the Additional District Magistrate cancelled the lease of the petitioners. 5. The submission is that against the order dated 23.1.2002, seeking relief for staying the dispossession of the petitioners from the allotted land, a revision was filed under Section 333 of the Act, 1950, before the Board of Revenue. The Board summoned the records and issued notice to the opposite parties. The revision was dismissed in default on 23.10.2007 and after getting knowledge of that dismissal on 22.6.2009, a Restoration Application no. 49 of 2008-09 was filed on 22.6.2009. It is stated that several dates were fixed on the said restoration application which was dismissed in default by the order dated 23.5.2012. After obtaining knowledge of the aforesaid order dated 23.5.2012 from the village Pradhan, a restoration application for recalling the order dated 23.5.2012 along with a delay condonation application was filed on 24.8.2021 before the Board. By the impugned order dated 29.9.22021, the Board dismissed the restoration application on the ground that delay was not explained. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are rustic villagers having no knowledge of intricacies of law and a liberal and justice oriented approach was required to be adopted by the Board while deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the petitioners, anyway, had sufficiently explained the delay. It has further been contended while referring to paragraph no. 6 of the supplementary affidavit after narration of the sequence of dates that on 27.9.2011 due to condolence, the case was adjourned for 4.1.2012; that on 4.1.2012, the Joint Registrar fixed the next date as 22.3.2012. It has further been contended while referring to paragraph no. 6 of the supplementary affidavit after narration of the sequence of dates that on 27.9.2011 due to condolence, the case was adjourned for 4.1.2012; that on 4.1.2012, the Joint Registrar fixed the next date as 22.3.2012. It is stated that thereafter on 7.5.2012, next date 23.5.2012 was fixed by the Board without assigning any reason and without any knowledge of the counsel for the revisionists and thereafter on 23.5.2012 the Restoration Application no. 49 of 2008-09 was dismissed in default. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the restoration application and the delay condonation application dated 23.8.2021 (Annexure 13 to the writ petition) filed after the case was dismissed in default on 23.5.2012. It is therefore contended that the Board adopted a high technical approach in rejecting the application for restoration on the ground of unexplained delay. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the State as well counsel for the Gaon Sabha have opposed the writ petition. 8. It is evident from perusal of the writ petition that the petitioners have not filed a copy of the Restoration Application no. 49 of 2008-09 along with this petition which was for restoring the revision after it was dismissed in default on 23.10.2007 by the Board. Further the reason for non-appearance on 23.5.2012 was sought to be explained by the petitioners in paragraph no. 12 to 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the Restoration Application of 2021 filed before the Board, which is as under: "12. That non-appearance of the counsel for revisionists was neither intentional nor willful but on account of non-awareness/lack of knowledge of the date 23.05.2012. 13. That the Village (Kailei) Pradhan (Smt. Shikha Kushwaha W/o Rohit Kushwaha) on 16.08.2021 informed the Revisionist No. 1 (Sushil Kumar), Revisionist No. 9 (Mahabir) and Revisionist No. 11 (Krishna Pal Singh) that their revision has been dismissed so they have to vacate the allotted land in question. 14. That the deponent (Sushil Kumar) thereafter obtained latest Khatauni of 1425-1430F. in respect of Arazi No. 1107, 1049 and then came to know that name of recorded Khatedar has been cancelled and land has been recorded in the name of Gram Sabha (Usar Khata) by the Lekhpal on 14.08.20212. A photocopy of Khatauni 1424-1430F. is annexed to this affidavit as Annexure-2. in respect of Arazi No. 1107, 1049 and then came to know that name of recorded Khatedar has been cancelled and land has been recorded in the name of Gram Sabha (Usar Khata) by the Lekhpal on 14.08.20212. A photocopy of Khatauni 1424-1430F. is annexed to this affidavit as Annexure-2. However, there is no mention of the order dated 23.05.2012 dismissing the case in default passed by Board of Revenue U.P. Allahabad. 15. That thereafter the deponent (Revisionist No. 1) along with Revisionist No. 9 (Mahabir) and Revisionist No. 11 (Krishna Pal Singh) came to Prayagraj on 20.08.2021 and contacted to their counsel in his Office and got prepared Restoration Application with delay condonation application for recalling the order dated 23.05.2012. 16. That the Restoration Application along with delay condonation application is being filed on 23.08.2021 which may be treated within time from the date of knowledge ie. 16.08.2021 as such delay, if any, in filing of the Restoration Application is liable to be condoned." 9. A perusal of the supplementary affidavit reveals that admittedly the counsel for the petitioners had knowledge of the date 4.1.2012 (paragraph no. 6 of the supplementary affidavit). It is stated that on 4.1.2012, the next date was fixed by the Joint Registrar was 22.3.2012 and thereafter on 7.5.2012, next date 23.5.2012 was fixed by the Board without assigning any reason and without any knowledge of the counsel for the revisionists. It has been stated in paragraph no. 7 that no notice of the date 22.3.2012 had been sent to the counsel for the revisionists while fixing date by Joint Registrar on 4.1.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any rule that requires the Joint Registrar to send any such notice to the parties/counsel in the facts and circumstances appearing in the supplementary affidavit. When, admittedly, the date 4.1.2012 was known to the counsel for the petitioners, it was the duty of the counsel to inquire about the next date fixed. Further a certified copy of the order-sheet reveals initials appearing on the left margin against the date 4.1.2012 and no explanation has been proffered in respect of the initials which are routinely made by the learned counsel or the parties. Moreover, no order-sheet of 22.3.2012 has been brought on record so as to evince what transpired on 22.3.2012. 10. Further a certified copy of the order-sheet reveals initials appearing on the left margin against the date 4.1.2012 and no explanation has been proffered in respect of the initials which are routinely made by the learned counsel or the parties. Moreover, no order-sheet of 22.3.2012 has been brought on record so as to evince what transpired on 22.3.2012. 10. The order of the Board of Revenue, therefore, that after the dismissal in default of the application for restoration on 23.5.2012, after a period of nine years, the restoration application was filed only on the ground that the petitioner had no knowledge does not appear to be correct, is reason enough and is justified. 11. Under the circumstances, no interference in the order dated 29.9.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue is warranted. 12. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.