JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for respondent no.4/9, Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for respondent-Gram Sabha and Mr. Arunesh Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Common issues are involved in both the aforementioned writ petition, as such, both the writ petitions are clubbed and heard together. 3. Stamp Reporter has reported laches of 1654 days in filing the Writ B No. 442 of 2025 as well as Writ B No. 444 of 2025. 4. Petitioner has explained the laches in para Nos. 21 to 27 of the writ petition which is not satisfactory but in place of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches, the matter should be decided on merit. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the agriculture lease was executed in favour of respondent second set on 6.5.1999 which was approved by Sub Divisional Officer on 15.6.1999. Petitioner and the proforma respondents have filed a complaint on 10.7.2001 challenging the allotment made by Land Management Committee on 6.5.1999/ 15.6.1999 in favour of respondent second set. The aforementioned complaint was registered as case No. 16 of 2001-02 (Computerized case No. D200518020016 and case No. 16 of 2001-02. Notice was issued to the allottees on 18.11.2002 by the respondent no.2/Additional Collector Judicial Aligarh. Allottees have filed their objection stating that allotment was made after following the due procedure prescribed under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. A report was submitted by the authorities on 20.8.2002/ 17.5.2003. Respondent no.2, Additional Collector vide order dated 8.6.2018 cancelled the allotment made by Land Management Committee dated 6.5.1999/ 17.12.1999/ 15.6.1999. Allottees have filed their objection stating that allotment was made after following the due procedure prescribed under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. A report was submitted by the authorities on 20.8.2002/ 17.5.2003. Respondent no.2, Additional Collector vide order dated 8.6.2018 cancelled the allotment made by Land Management Committee dated 6.5.1999/ 17.12.1999/ 15.6.1999. Against the order dated 8.6.2018, allottees filed revision before the Board of Revenue which was registered as revision No. 1555 of 2018, Computerized case No. AL20181802001555 as well as revision No. 522 of 2020, Computerized case No. AL2020180200522 respondent no.1/ Board of Revenue vide order dated 23.4.2020 allowed both the revisions setting aside the order dated 8.6.2018 hence Writ B No. 442 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/complainant after about five years (1654 days) for the following relief:- "To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgement and order dated 23.4.2020 passed by Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Prayagraj, the respondent no.1 in Revision No. 522 of 2020 (Computer Case No. AL2020180200522) Kamal Singh Vs. Santosh Kumar and Others." 6. Writ B No. 444 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of petitioner/ complainant after about five years (1654 days) for the following relief:- "To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgement and order dated 23.4.2020 passed by Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Prayagraj, the respondent no.1 in Revision No. 1555 of 2018 (Computer Case No. AL20181802001555) Smt. Maya Devi and Others Vs. Santosh Kumar and Others." 7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that lease was not executed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, as such, on the basis of complaint filed by petitioner along with proforma respondents, Additional Collector has rightly cancelled the lease executed in favour of allottees and directed to record the plot in question as Gaon Sabha plot. He further submitted that Board of Revenue has exceeded his revisional jurisdiction in setting aside the order passed by Additional Collector cancelling the lease of the allottees. He submitted that no proper munadi has taken place before execution of lease in favour of allottees, as such, the allotment cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that Board of Revenue has exceeded his revisional jurisdiction in setting aside the order passed by Additional Collector cancelling the lease of the allottees. He submitted that no proper munadi has taken place before execution of lease in favour of allottees, as such, the allotment cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He submitted that impugned orders passed by respondent no.1/ Board of Revenue are liable to be set aside and order passed by Additional Collector dated 8.6.2018 should be affirmed. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned counsel appearing for one of the allottee submitted that writ petition at the instance of the complainant after about 5 years from the date of passing of the order of Board of Revenue cannot be entertained. He further submitted that allotment was made after following the procedure prescribed under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder, as such, the allotment made in the year 1999 cannot be cancelled. He further submitted that Board of Revenue has properly exercised the revisional jurisdiction considering the evidence on record recording finding of fact that every procedure/proceeding for allotment has been followed by the authorities, as such, the allotment made on 6.5.1999/ 15.6.1999 cannot be cancelled. He submitted that finding of fact has also been recorded by Board of Revenue that from the perusal of ZA Form 57 Kha, it is fully demonstrated that allotment has been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. He further submitted that munadi/ agenda has properly taken place, as such, the lease executed on 6.5.1999/ 15.6.1999 cannot be cancelled. He submitted that no interference is required and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. There is no dispute about the fact that agriculture allotment was made in favour of allottees/respondent second set on 6.5.1999/ 15.6.1999. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner along with proforma respondents filed a complaint and Additional Collector has cancelled the lease of the allottees vide order dated 8.6.2018. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by allottees have been allowed by Board of Revenue vide order dated 23.4.2020 setting aside the order of Additional Collector dated 8.6.2018. 11. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by allottees have been allowed by Board of Revenue vide order dated 23.4.2020 setting aside the order of Additional Collector dated 8.6.2018. 11. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of finding of fact recorded by Board of Revenue will be relevant which is as under:- 12. The perusal of finding of fact recorded by Board of Revenue as quoted above fully demonstrate that each and every aspect of the matter has been considered by Board of Revenue while setting aside the order passed by Additional Collector dated 8.6.2018. The finding of fact has also been recorded by Board of Revenue to the effect that munadi/ agenda proposal have properly taken place and true copy of Z.A. Form 57 Kha are available on record, as such, the finding recorded by Additional Collector that allotment proceedings are not available on record is totally misconceived. 13. Considering the finding of fact recorded by the Board of Revenue as well as the filing of instant petition by complainant after about 5 years from the date of passing of the order by Board of Revenue dated 23.4.2020, there is no scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 23.4.2020 passed by respondent no.1, Board of Revenue in the respective revision. 14. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.