Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar And Another vs Addl.Commissioner Lucknow And ... on 6 April, 2022
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000008 of 1996
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar And Another
Respondent :- Addl.Commissioner Lucknow And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K.Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J.P. Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State. Perused the record.
The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 6.12.1995 passed in Appeal No. 315 of 1992-93 (Ashok Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) and the order dated 29.6.1973 passed by the opposite party no. 2 in Case No. 43 (Ashok Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P.), under Section 11(2) of The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1972').
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that factual matrix of the case is that on the basis of the registered gift deed dated 26.6.1970, the petitioners have filed objection under Section 11(2) of Act, 1972 before the Prescribed Authority. Considering the aforesaid objections, the Prescribed Authority has dismissed the aforesaid case only on the premise of being time barred and the merit of the case which was raised through the aforesaid case was neither considered nor dealt with. He further submits that the petitioners have filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and that too has been dismissed on the ground that there was a delay in filing the aforesaid objection and as such he has uphold the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. He further placed reliance on a full bench judgment reported in AIR 1970 All 130 (F.B.) and a decision of Single Judge in the case of Santosh Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and Others) decided on 30.05.2019, wherein it was held that the matter which is not being brought before the Prescribed Authority has to be dealt with on merit itself and that cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.
After the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his argument to the effect that interest of justice would suffice if the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the authority concerned for hearing the matter afresh after calling the objection from the petitioners.
On the other hand, Sri J.P. Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State has no objection to the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the records, the order dated 29.6.1973 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the order dated 6.12.1995 passed by the Appellate Authority are hereby set aside.
The mater is remanded back to the Prescribed Authority to hear the matter afresh after calling objection from the petitioners and the earlier objection filed by the petitioners and pass order afresh within a period of three months from the date of certified copy of this order produced by the petitioners before him.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 6.4.2022
SA
