JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. In Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation/ Restoration Application Nos. 3 and 4 of 2023 1. Counsel for the petitioner-applicant is permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer clause of the application during course of the day. 2. Heard Mr. Somendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner- applicant, Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent- Land Management Committee and Mr. Anjani Kumar Chaurasia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 3. The instant applications have been filed to recall the order dated 1.3.2023 dismissing the delay condonation and restoration application for want of prosecution. 4. The explanation given for delay in filing the restoration application is satisfactory. 5. Delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. 6. The cause shown for non-appearance on the date fixed is sufficient. 7. The order dated 1.3.2023 is recalled and delay condonation application No. 1 of 2023 and restoration application No. 2 of 2023 are restored to its original numbers. 8. The applications are accordingly allowed. In Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation/ Restoration Application Nos. 1 and 2 of 2023 1. Heard Mr. Somendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner- applicant, Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent- Land Management Committee and Mr. Anjani Kumar Chaurasia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The instant applications have been filed to recall the order dated 11.10.2022 dismissing the writ petition for want of prosecution along with the prayer for condonation of delay. 3. The explanation given for delay in filing the restoration application is satisfactory. 4. Delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. 5. The cause shown for non-appearance on the date fixed is sufficient. 6. The order dated 11.10.2022 dismissing the writ petition for want of prosecution is recalled and writ petition is restored to its original number. 7. The applications are accordingly allowed. In Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation/ Substitution Application Nos. 5 and 6 of 2025 1. Heard Mr. Somendra Singh, learned counsel for petitioner- applicant, Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent- Land Management Committee and Mr. Anjani Kumar Chaurasia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The instant applications have been filed in respect to deceased sole petitioner along with the prayer for condonation of delay. 3. The explanation given for delay is satisfactory. 4. Delay in filing the substitution application is condoned. 5. Anjani Kumar Chaurasia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The instant applications have been filed in respect to deceased sole petitioner along with the prayer for condonation of delay. 3. The explanation given for delay is satisfactory. 4. Delay in filing the substitution application is condoned. 5. Let the word deceased be mentioned against the name of sole petitioner and the name of her legal heirs as mentioned in the prayer clause be substituted as petitioner nos. 1/1 and 1/2 respectively. 6. The applications are accordingly allowed. Order on Writ Petition 1. Heard Mr. Somendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent- Land Management Committee and Mr. Anjani Kumar Chaurasia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner- Smt. Basheeran Bibi was granted agriculture lease on 28.9.1969 in respect to plot No. 66 situated in Village Sangampur, Pargana and District Fatehpur. On the basis of the lease executed in favour of Smt. Basheeran Bibi, the possession was delivered in favour of Smt. Basheeran Bibi and the name was accordingly recorded in the records. Respondent no.2/ Jagannath filed a complaint on 7.6.1975 which was registered as case No. 198 (2) of the U.P. Zamdindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Smt. Basheeran Bibi filed her objection before the Additional Collector stating that lease was executed in accordance with the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder, as such, a private complaint filed by Jagannath is liable to be rejected. Additional Collector heard the matter and vide order dated 23.2.1977 rejected/ dismissed the proceeding/ complaint filed by respondent no.2 recording the finding of fact that no irregularity has been found in execution of agriculture lease in favour of Smt. Basheeran Bibi. Against the order dated 23.2.1977 passed by Additional Collector, revision was filed by respondent no.2 before the Commissioner which was registered as revision No. 82 of 1976-77. Additional Commissioner Allahabad Division Allahabad vide order dated 5.1.1978 sent the reference before Board of Revenue for setting aside the order passed by Additional Collector as well as for cancellation of allotment made in favour of Smt. Basheeran Bibi. Additional Commissioner Allahabad Division Allahabad vide order dated 5.1.1978 sent the reference before Board of Revenue for setting aside the order passed by Additional Collector as well as for cancellation of allotment made in favour of Smt. Basheeran Bibi. The aforementioned reference was registered as reference No. 890 of 1977-78, Board of Revenue vide order dated 29.8.1980 has decided the reference, allowed the revision setting aside the order of Additional Collector as well as cancelled the allotment made in favour of Smt. Basheeran Bibi. The review application filed on behalf of Smt. Basheeran Bibi has been dismissed under the impugned order dated 19.4.1982 passed by Board of Revenue. Hence this writ petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner for the following reliefs:- "(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.4.1982 passed by respondent no.1. (ii) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.8.1980 passed by respondent no.1." 3. This Court admitted the writ petition and granted interim order on 24.12.1982 staying the dispossession of the petitioners. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed in this matter by State/Gaon Sabha for last more than 42 years, as such, there is no option except to decide the instant writ petition on the basis of averment made in the writ petition. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that agriculture lease was executed in favour of Smt. Basheeran Bibi on 28.9.1969 in accordance with the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder, as such, the lease executed in the year 1969 cannot be cancelled on the basis of private complaint filed on 7.6.1975. He further submitted that Additional Collector has rightly exercised the jurisdiction in rejecting the proceeding initiated for cancellation of lease executed in favour of Smt. Basheeran Bibi. He submitted that finding of fact recorded by the Additional Collector has not been reversed in proper manner by the Additional Commissioner while sending the reference before Board of Revenue for setting aside the order passed by Additional Collector as well as for cancellation of lease of Smt. Basheeran Bibi. He submitted that Board of Revenue while passing the order has allowed the revision setting aside the order passed by Additional Collector as well as cancelled the lease executed in favour of Smt. Basheeran Bibi. He submitted that Board of Revenue while passing the order has allowed the revision setting aside the order passed by Additional Collector as well as cancelled the lease executed in favour of Smt. Basheeran Bibi. He submitted that the lease executed in proper manner cannot be cancelled by the revenue authorities in arbitrary manner on the basis of private complaint. He submitted that impugned order should be set aside and the lease executed on 28.9.1969 in favour of Smt. Basheeran Bibi should be affirmed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent- Land Management Committee and Mr. Anjani Kumar Chaurasia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents submitted that in view of the finding recorded by Additional Commissioner while sending the reference before Board of Revenue, no interference is required against the impugned orders. They submitted that Smt. Basheeran Bibi was having sufficient land, as such, the lease cannot be executed in favour of Smt. Basheeran Bibi. They submitted that in view of the finding of fact recorded by Additional Commissioner, the lease of the plot in question cannot be executed in favour of Smt. Basheeran Bibi. They submitted that writ petition should be dismissed and the order passed by Board of Revenue should be maintained. 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 agriculture lease was executed in favour of Smt. Basheeran Bibi on 28.9.1969 in respect to plot No. 66 which has been cancelled by Board of Revenue vide order dated 29.8.1980 while allowing the revision. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of finding of fact recorded by the Additional Collector while rejecting the proceeding for cancellation of lease will be relevant which is as under:- 10. The perusal of the finding of fact recorded by the Additional Collector dated 23.2.1977 as quoted above fully demonstrate that there was no illegality regarding execution of agriculture lease made on 28.9.1969 in favour of Smt. Basheeran Bibi. The finding of fact recorded by Additional Collector has not been reversed in proper manner by Additional Commissioner/ Board of Revenue while setting aside the order of Additional Collector and cancelling the lease of Smt. Basheeran Bibi. 11. The finding of fact recorded by Additional Collector has not been reversed in proper manner by Additional Commissioner/ Board of Revenue while setting aside the order of Additional Collector and cancelling the lease of Smt. Basheeran Bibi. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 19.4.1982 as well as 29.8.1980 passed by respondent no.1, Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. Writ petition stands allowed and the lease executed on 28.9.1969 is affirmed. The authorities are directed to correct the revenue entry of the plot in question forthwith. 12. No order as to costs.