JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel, for the respondent no. 4-Gaon Sabha. 2. This Court had passed an order dated 07.11.2024 and in pursuance thereof the respondent no. 2 was required to submit his explanation. In furtherance thereof Sri Ajay Kant Saini, Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya has appeared and filed his personal affidavit which is taken on record and has also shown the original records relating to the Revision No. 1193 of 2024 (Smt. Vimla Devi Vs. Vijay Kumar and Others). 3. The petitioner has instituted the present petition wherein he seeks quashing of the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby the revision was allowed without issuing notice and even without condoning the delay at the admission stage itself and remitted the matter to the court of first instance to consider and decide the controversy after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. 4. The primary dispute had arisen between the petitioner and the private respondents in a suit filed under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. An interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner on 28.08.2020 directing the parties not alienate the property in question. After more than three years, the private respondents preferred a revision which as noticed above was allowed without condoning the delay or without issuing notice. 5. It was also urged that even though the matter was listed for 09th October, 2024 yet in a surreptitious manner, the impugned order has been passed on 05.09.2024 as such the Revisional Authority without there being any reason or material on record has pre-poned the date and without information to the petitioner, the revision was allowed. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the respondent no. 2 was summoned to explain as also to present the record. 6. Upon perusal of the original record placed before this Court, it indicates that the first order was passed on 17.05.2024 fixing 24.05.2024 as the next date. Thereafter the matter was listed on 24.05.2024 but on account of paucity of time, it was adjourned for 07th June, 2024. On 07th June, 2024 since the Presiding Office was busy in administrative duty, the matter was listed on 21.06.2024. 7. Thereafter the matter was listed on 24.05.2024 but on account of paucity of time, it was adjourned for 07th June, 2024. On 07th June, 2024 since the Presiding Office was busy in administrative duty, the matter was listed on 21.06.2024. 7. On 21.06.2024, an order was passed that for the purposes of consideration of an application for condonation of delay, interim relief as well as on admission of the revision, the Presiding Officer considered that the records of the Trial Court were necessary to be perused, hence, it called for the records and also issued notice to the respondents in the revision (the petitioner herein). 8. The matter was thereafter listed on 12.07.2024 on which date again the order indicates that the Lower Court Record had not been received and no notices were issued to the respondents, hence, the same compliance has to be done by the revisionist and the matter was fixed for 09.10.2024 but thereafter the impugned order dated 05.09.2024 has been passed. 9. This Court notices that most of the order sheets which have been placed on record are not signed by the Presiding Officer. The manner in which the order sheets have been drawn also prima facie appears that they have been incorporated at a later stage. There is nothing on record to indicate that any notices were issued to the respondents of the revision and apparently till the order dated 05.09.2024 was passed till then neither the records were available nor the notice to the respondents of the revision were issued. 10. By the impugned order, the respondent no. 2 without condoning the delay has set aside the order dated 28.08.2020 and that too without ascertaining as to the fact that once an earlier order had been passed on 21.06.2024 for issuing notice and 12.07.2024 then without recording any satisfaction regarding service of summons and the availability of record, the impugned order has been passed which is per se illegal. 11. In the aforesaid context, if the personal affidavit of the respondent is seen in paragraph nos. 4 to 9, an attempt has been made to explain the actions. The relevant paragraphs 6 and 7 is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:- “6. 11. In the aforesaid context, if the personal affidavit of the respondent is seen in paragraph nos. 4 to 9, an attempt has been made to explain the actions. The relevant paragraphs 6 and 7 is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:- “6. That it is also respectfully submitted before this Hon'ble Court that after passing the interim order dated 28.08.2020 a Revision had been filed on 13.05.2024 under section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 by Smt. Vimla Devi, and in continuation of hearing of the revision, orders were passed on 21.06.2024 and 12.07.2024 that in the interest of justice, before admitting the revision the records of the trial court be summoned and in the order it was also mentioned that notices be issued to the opposite parties to be heard at the admission stage, but since generally notices are issued after admitting the revision and the order dated 05.09.2024 was passed at the admission stage itself, remanding back the ex parte order 28.08.2024 for rehearing, giving opportunity to the revisionist to be heard, under this impression that since the matter is only remanded back so the parties can raise whatever grievances they have before the trial court itself, issuing of notices is overlooked. 7. That it is respectfully submitted before this Hon'ble Court that in furtherance of the hearing of the revision, an order was passed on 12.07.2024 that the case be next listed on 09.10.2024, but an application was filed on 29.07.2024 on behalf of the revisionist through his counsel for the recall of the order dated 12.07.2024 for preponing the date already fixed for 09.10.2024, in the meantime the records have been received in the revisional court on 09.08.2024, and the recall application which was filed on 29.07.2024 was fixed for hearing on 02.08.2024 and was subsequently again fixed for hearing on 22.08.2024 and was finally fixed for orders on 05.09.2024, preponing the earlier date fixed as 09.10.2024 as per order dated 12.07.2024. The copy of the recall application dated 29.07.2024 and copy of the order sheet is being annexed as Annexure no. PCA-3 & 4 , along with this Affidavit. 12. From the perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs, it would indicate that the explanation given is completely bereft of any reasons and it appears that the respondent no. The copy of the recall application dated 29.07.2024 and copy of the order sheet is being annexed as Annexure no. PCA-3 & 4 , along with this Affidavit. 12. From the perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs, it would indicate that the explanation given is completely bereft of any reasons and it appears that the respondent no. 2 has no understanding of the law which has been settled by the Apex Court as well as by a number of decisions of our own High Court. 13. As far as the reference to an application for pre-poning the date is concerned, it indicates that the same was moved on 29.07.2024 upon which it was ordered that the matter be taken up on 02nd August, 2024. 14. It will be relevant to notice that the respondent no. 2 in paragraphs no. 11 on his personal affidavit has stated as under:- “11. That it is also respectfully submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the petitioner has not come up before this Hon'ble court with clean intentions, suppressing and hiding the facts that a recall application dated 29.07.2024 was filed by the counsel of the revisionist, for preponing the date fixed as 09.10.2024 vide order dated 12.07.2024 before this Hon'ble Court and also has not brought on record the orders dated 02.08.2024 and 22.08.2024 before this hon'ble court that it also seems that this fact that the revisionist died on 20.06.2024 has also been suppressed with ulterior motives which is quite evident that they lived in the same village and are relatives of Smt. Vimla Devi.” 15. Relevant portion of the order sheets are being scanned and reproduced hereinafter:- 16. It has been stated by the deponent i.e. the respondent no. 2 that Vimla Devi had died on 20th June, 2024 and this fact has been suppressed by the petitioner, this averment does not have legs to stand for the reason that the revision had been preferred by the respondent no. 5 and it was the duty of the respondent no. 5 to have stated that vimla Devi had died. Even otherwise, once Vimla Devi had died on 20th June, 2024 then under what circumstances, the alleged application for preponement of the date was moved on behalf of the revisionist dated 29.07.2024 and it could not have been taken note of. 17. 5 to have stated that vimla Devi had died. Even otherwise, once Vimla Devi had died on 20th June, 2024 then under what circumstances, the alleged application for preponement of the date was moved on behalf of the revisionist dated 29.07.2024 and it could not have been taken note of. 17. If the said application is seen, it indicates that it is filed by the applicant Vimla Devi and the counsel has also signed the said application. Apparently, an incorrect order has been passed by the respondent no. 2 but in his zeal to justify his conduct, he has made averments in his personal affidavit which per se are not justiciable. 18. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances which clearly amplifies three facts:- (i) that the revision was entertained by the respondent no. 2 and despite having issued notice and call for the records yet before passing any order, he did not satisfy himself whether the records were available or the service on the respondents of the revision was complete or not and the facts reveal that the respondents were not issued notice at all, hence the order was ex-parte. (ii) that without condoning the delay by means of the impugned order dated 05.09.2024, the revision itself has been finally allowed which is again jurisdictional error which is patent on the face of record. (iii) that the alleged application moved by the revisionist which countersigned by the counsel seeking fixing of early date is of the month of July, 2024 whereas the revisionist namely Vimla Devi had expired in the month of June, 2024 itself as also mentioned by the officer before the Court in his personal affidavit in paragraph 11. Thus, the order being against a dead person is apparently nonest. 19. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order cannot sustain for a second and in such circumstances, though, this Court would normally issue notice to the private respondents but as noticed above for the reasons the order impugned is totally without jurisdiction and by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be justified even by the private respondent no. 5 on whose behalf an application for early hearing was moved after the respondent no. 5 had died is a glaring error. 20. 5 on whose behalf an application for early hearing was moved after the respondent no. 5 had died is a glaring error. 20. Hence, this Court does not deem it appropriate to keep the matter pending, hence, a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued and the the impugned order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed and the matter shall stand restored before the respondent no. 3 who is seized of the suit under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the interim order granted by the court of first instance dated 28.08.2020 is restored. 21. The explanation as furnished by the respondent no. 2 is not adequate and is not expected from a senior officer as that of Sri Ajay Kant Saini who holds the post of Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Region, Ayodhya. This order shall shall be communicated to the Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P. for taking action as may be appropriate in law against the erring officer. 22. The original records shall be handed over to Sri S.K. Khare, learned Standing Counsel for the State.