(1.) Heard Mr. Manish Kumar Nigam learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 and Mr. Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.Gaon Sabha.
(2.) With the consent of the parties, writ petition is being finally disposed of at admission stage.
(3.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was allotted abadi land of Arazi No. 225/1 in the year 1993 in accordance with rules and the same was approved by Sub-Divisional-Magistrate on 21/3/1993. Petitioner comes under first category of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 122 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. The construction was raised by the petitioner over the land allotted to him. On an application dtd. 23/7/1999 under Sec. 115-P of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act filed by the Gram Pradhan after six year, proceedings were imitated against the petitioner. Petitioner filed objection in the aforesaid proceeding. The Sub-DivisionalMagistrate vide order dtd. 5/9/2013 cancelled the approval order dtd. 22/3/1993. Petitioner challenged the order dtd. 5/9/2013 through revision No.447 of 2013 before respondent No.3 in which interim order was granted by the respondent No.3 staying operation of the order passed by the courts below and matter was fixed for disposal. Revision was fixed for 14/5/2016 but due to absence of counsel for the petitioner revision was dismissed as default on 14/5/2016. Petitioner came to know about the order dtd. 14/5/2016 on 1/5/2018 accordingly, the restoration application along with delay condonation was filed to recall the order dtd. 14/5/2016. The respondent No.3 vide order dtd. 6/10/2018 rejected the restoration application on the ground of delay. Petitioner challenged order dtd. 6/10/2018 by way of revision before the respondent No.4. In the revision interim order was passed, but later on, revision was rejected by impugned order dtd. 27/10/2021 saying that matter was rightly decided by the courts below and the revision filed by the petitioner dismissed, hence the present writ petition.