JUDGMENT : (Chandra Kumar Rai, J.) 1. Heard Sri K.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Jitendra Kumar for respondent no.6/1/5, Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.7, Sri Manoj Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6/2/1 to 6/2/4, Sri Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents and Sri Gopal Krishna Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.5/Nagar Palika Parishad/Nagar Nigam. 2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot no.969, area 1.72 acre and plot no.980, area 2.37 acre, situated in Mauza Rudra Panch Mahal, Jhansi, District Jhansi. One Dhani Ram (father of respondent no.5) filed a civil suit on 10.3.1969, impleading the petitioner as well State of U.P. and others as defendants for decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interferring in the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of plot nos. 969 and 980 as well as for specific performance. The aforementioned suit was registered as Suit No.219/1969 before Munisaf, Jhansi. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 4.10.1974 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The decree of the trial court dated 4.10.1974 was maintained in appeal vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.1976 which has attained finality. On 23.10.1999, a suit under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act"), was filed impleading Dhani Ram (father of respondent no.5) & others as defendants. The aforementioned suit was registered as Suit No.6/1999-2000 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Jhansi. The trial court/S.D.O. dismissed the suit as not maintainable vide judgment dated 1.2.2008. Against the judgment dated 1.2.2008, the appeal was filed before the Commissioner at the instance of the contesting respondent which was heard by the Addl. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and vide judgment dated 30.5.2011, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back before the trial court to decide the suit afresh, after framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence. In pursuance of the remand order passed in appeal on 30.5.2011, the trial court proceeded with the matter and after hearing both the parties, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 26.2.2015. In pursuance of the remand order passed in appeal on 30.5.2011, the trial court proceeded with the matter and after hearing both the parties, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 26.2.2015. Against the judgment dated 26.2.2015, the appeal was filed before the Commissioner which was allowed vide judgment dated 24.7.2018, setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court as well as decreed the plaintiff's suit. Against the judgment and decree of the appellate court dated 24.7.2018, petitioner filed Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue/respondent no.1 being Second Appeal No.2489/2018. The Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 4.9.2019 allowed the second appeal, filed by the petitioner, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 21.7.2018, passed by the Addl. Commissioner in appeal. Against the judgment dated 4.9.2019, passed by the Board of Revenue, respondent no.7/Subhash Chand filed an application dated 13.11.2019 for recalling the judgment dated 4.9.2019 along with the prayers for condonation of delay on the ground that it has been passed in ex parte manner as well as without substituting the legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 1 who died during pendency of the appeal. Respondent no.1/Board of Revenue vide order dated 11.4.2023, allowed the recall application dated 13.11.2019, setting aside the order dated 4.9.2019 and restored the second appeal on its original number for fresh decision. Hence, this writ petition. 3. This Court entertained the matter on 4.10.2023 and issued notice to the private respondents. In pursuance of the order dated 4.10.2023, private respondent no.7 who has filed recall application before the Board of Revenue as well as respondent nos. 6/1/5 & 6/2/1 to 6/2/4 have put in appearance through their counsel. The service of notice upon the rest of the private respondents is deemed to be sufficient in view of the office report dated 18.12.2023. 4. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a recall application, in second appeal, has been allowed, by respondent no.1/Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submitted that the second appeal was decided in accordance with law on merit, as such, the recall application on behalf of the contesting respondent no.7, was not maintainable in the second appeal. He further submitted that the second appeal was decided in accordance with law on merit, as such, the recall application on behalf of the contesting respondent no.7, was not maintainable in the second appeal. He further submitted that without service of notice to the petitioner on the recall application, the impugned order has been passed, restoring the second appeal on its original number, as such, the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue, allowing the recall application, be set aside. 6. On the other hand, Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Jitendra Kumar for respondent no.6/1/5, Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.7 and Sri Manoj Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6/2/1 to 6/2/4 submitted that the recall application filed against the order passed by the Board of Revenue in second appeal, was maintainable as the order allowing the second appeal was ex parte, as such, the same was rightly entertained. They further submitted that the recall application has been allowed in accordance with law and no interference is required against the order impugned, passed by the Board of Revenue as petitioner has opportunity to contest the proceeding of second appeal on merit. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that the Board of Revenue has decided the second appeal vide order dated 4.9.2019. There is also no dispute that against the order dated 4.9.2019, a recall application dated 13.11.2019 was filed at the instance of respondent no.7 which has been allowed under the impugned order dated 11.4.2023, setting aside the order dated 4.9.2019. 9. On the Recall application as well as delay condonation matter dated 13.11.2019 filed by respondent No.-7 notice was issued to opposite parties on delay condonation matter by board of revenue on 5.12.2019 but without service of notice upon the petitioners who were appellant of the second appeal before board of revenue the recall application as well as delay condonation matter has been allowed. 10. The perusal of the records reveals that no proper opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner before allowing the recall application dated 13.11.2019 as well as delay condonation matter filed by the respondent no.7 Subhash Chandra. 11. 10. The perusal of the records reveals that no proper opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner before allowing the recall application dated 13.11.2019 as well as delay condonation matter filed by the respondent no.7 Subhash Chandra. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 11.4.2023 passed by respondent no.1/Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad in Misc. Recall Application No.3013 of 2019 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. 12. The writ petition is allowed in part and the matter is remitted back before respondent no.1/Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad to decide the recall application dated 13.11.2019 in the following manner:- (i) Petitioner or the contesting respondent shall file the certified copy of this judgment along with the necessary application before Registry of respondent no.1 on or before 7.2.2024 and the Registry shall put up this matter before the Court for 7.2.2024. (ii) Parties (petitioner as well as respondents) who are represented by their counsel before this Court, will appear before respondent no.1/Board of Revenue on 7.2.2024. (iii) If notice is required to be issued to any other unrepresented parties, the same shall be issued to the party concerned by respondent no.1 forthwith. (iv) Respondent no.1/Board of Revenue shall proceed to decide the Recall Application No.3013/2019 dated 13.11.2019 as well as delay condonation matter afresh, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to both parties, taking into consideration the objection of the petitioner against the recall application, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before respondent no.1.