Allahabad High Court
Zafarullah Khan vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 20 December, 2012
Bench: Anil Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 18
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 732 of 2012
Petitioner :- Zafarullah Khan
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Gonda And Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Ambhrish Tripathi
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C
Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Ambhrish Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vinay Bhushan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record.
Controversy in the present case relates to land situated in village Rankibadalpur, Pargana- Sadullah Nagar, Tahsil- Utraula, District Balrampur. In respect to said land initially an objection has been filed by opposite parties no. 3 to 6 under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the same has been allowed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 21.12.1981 ( Annexure no.3). Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed a revision,dismissed by order dated 17.12.1990 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
From the perusal of the pleadings as made by the petitioner, he has explained delay in filing of present writ petition at such a belated stage, para-11 to the writ petition is quoted as under:-
"11. That for the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner got knowledge so late, as such there is delay in filing the writ petition , but in the interest of justice , the delay in liable to be condoned as the opposite parties committed fraud to grab the ancestral property of the petitioner."
Thus, taking into consideration the above said fact that statue of limitations is an enactment in a legal system that sets the maximum time after an event that legal proceedings based on that event may be initiated. It prescribes the time-limit for different suits within, which an aggrieved person can approach the court for redress or justice. The suit, if filed after the exploration or time-limit, is struck by the law of limitation. It's basically meant to protect the long and established user and to indirectly punish persons who go into a long slumber over their rights.
Under the Civil Legislation of Rome certain actions were allowed to be brought at any time and were known as 'Actiones Perpetuae" while on the other hand certain actions were subjected to a definite period of limitation & these were known as 'Actiones Temporalis'. In India before 1859 there was no uniform law of limitation, in 1859 it was first enacted as Code (Act XV of 1859), which was repealed by the Act of 1877 then came the Act of 1908. The Act of 1908 was repealed by the present Statute of 1963 (Act No.36 of 1963).
The main objection behind the Law of Limitation is, not to encourage the persons to raise disputes with regarding to the old and stale claims wherein the court may be reluctant to grant any relief considering the gravity of the dispute/claim. Further, the person who is not diligent in getting the relief for him/her by acting within time is stopped from seeking the relief against any person as he has given up his right in the said dispute.
All in all the purpose of the Limitation Law is that the Court could not help the person who after knowledge that he has suffered a legal injury kept sleeping over his right and never approached the Court for the redressal of his grievances within an appropriate period of time.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases, 524 after placing reliance on its earlier judgment passed in the case of Anshul Agarwal Vs. Noida (2011) 14 SCC 578 held that if the delay is not properly explained while filing a petition/ matter rather there is inordinate unexplained delay in filing the same , that matter should be dismissed on the said ground and in that case there was delay of 1314 days in filing a petition, against an order dated 16.9.2008, so Hon'ble the Supreme Court has dismissed the same on the ground that no sufficient reason has been explained in filing the petition at a belated stage .
In view of the said fact as in the present case, there is no satisfactory explanation has been given by the petitioner in filing the present writ petition at a belated stage , so liable to be dismissed on the said ground.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.
Order Date :- 20.12.2012
dk/
