Heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel.
The petitioner is aggrieved with order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the opposite party no1 i.e. Board of Revenue, whereby the petitioner's application for restoration of the application for restoration of Case No. 81/L.R. 2004 District Sultanpur has been rejected on the ground that against the order passed on the application for restoration the petitioner moved an application for restoration beyond time, whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application was rejected on 25.11.2004 and he moved the application for restoration on 7.12.2004, that is within time as is provided under section 201 of the Land Revenue Act. Accordingly he submits that the finding of Board of Revenue that the application for restoration of his earlier application for restoration was moved within time. In the light of the aforesaid facts he submits that the finding given by the Board of Revenue that the application for restoration of the case is beyond time is unfounded, therefore, the order impugned is unsustainable. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash the order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the Board of Revenue with the direction to the Board of Revenue to entertain the application on merit and decide the same expeditiously say within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. With the aforesaid observation/direction the writ petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 2.2.2010 GSY