Allahabad High Court
Mangte (Deceased) And 12 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 15 December, 2022
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23226 of 2022
Petitioner :- Mangte (Deceased) And 12 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Bhushan,Abhay Singh Tomar,Abhishek Bhushan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard Shri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4.
The petitioner has preferred the present petition to quash the orders dated 29.04.2022, 01.06.2011 and 23.03.2012 passed by the respondent nos. 3 and 2 respectively.
It is argued by Shri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners that earlier a petition was filed before this Court by Shri Rishipal and others being Writ C No. 1192 of 2013. The said writ petition was finally allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 06.03.2018. The operative portion of the order is reads as follows:-
"Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the orders dated 1.6.2011 and 23.3.2012 cannot be sustained and are to be quashed.
The pattas were executed in the year 1992. Under Sub-section (6) of Section 195 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the complaint which was filed in the year 2003-04 was barred by limitation by almost six years.
Further, I hold that since the question of limitation goes to the very root of the matter, even though it was not agitated before the courts below, it can definitely be raised here in this Court. Section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act would also be relvant. The same is being reproduced here as under:
"Section 3.- Bar of limitation - (1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.
(2) For the purpose of this Act, -
(a) A suit is instituted, -
(i) in an ordinary case, when the plaint is presented to the proper officer;
(ii) in the case of pauper, when his application for leave to sue as a pauper is made; and
(iii) in the case of a claim against a company which is being wound up by the Court, when the claimant first sends in his claim to the official liquidator;
(b) any claim by way of a set off or a counter-claim, shall be treated as a separate suit and shall be deemed to have been instituted -
(i) in the case of a set off, on the same date as the suit in which the set off is pleaded;
(ii) in the case of a counter-claim, on the date on which the counter-claim is made in Court;
(c) an application by notice of motion in a High Court is made when the application is presented to the proper officer of that Court"
The question of limitation had to be therefore looked into by the Court even if he dendant /opposite party had not raised it.
Further, after the application which was filed by Hardas was dismissed for non prosecution then he alone could have filed the application for restoration. State was a party whose actions were being adjudicated upon in the complaint which was filed by Hardas. It could not therefore, have supported the restoration application of Hardas.
The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The orders dated 1.6.2011 and 23.3.2012 are quashed.
It is made clear that this relief would be confined to the petitioners who had filed the instant writ petition."
However, the petitioners were not a party in that petition as such they were unable to obtain the benefit of the aforesaid order. The reveiew application was filed before the respondent no.3 namely Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Gautam Budh Nagar, the same was rejected by him vide its order dated 29.04.2022 on the ground that the same was filed after more than ten years.
It is further argued by the counsel for the petitioners that once the orders dated 01.06.2011 and 23.03.2012 were quashed by this Court, the petitioners are entitled for the same relief. It is further argued that controversy involved in the present case is absolutely identical as the case of Rishi Pal (Supra).
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the records, it is clear that the orders dated 01.06.2011 and 23.03.2012 were quashed by this Court only on the ground of limitation as per Sub Section 6 of Section 195 of U.P. Z.A and L.R. Act. The ratio of the aforesaid judgement is fully applicable in this case also.
In this view of the matter, the court is of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for the relief as has been granted by this Court in the case of Rishi Pal and others (supra).
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in Rishi Pal and others (supra).
The orders dated 01.06.2011, 23.03.2012 and 29.04.2022 are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 15.12.2022
Pramod Tripathi
