Allahabad High Court
Gaya Prasad And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 13 April, 2023
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2482 of 2023
Petitioner :- Gaya Prasad And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Lal,Santosh Kr. Yadav Warsi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Yadav Warsi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.S. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
Notice on behalf of opposite party no.3/Gaon Sabha has been accepted by Sri Pankaj Gupta.
In view of the proposed order, notices to private opposite parties are hereby dispensed with.
Sri Warsi has filed a supplementary affidavit today, the same is taken on record.
By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following main reliefs:
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 09.02.2023, passed by the respondent no.2.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to initiate measurement of the Aaraji/Gata no.12 area 0.569 hectare, forthwith."
The main premise to assail the order dated 9.2.2023 is that the petitioners had filed an application dated 22.7.2014 seeking restoration/recall of the order dated 19.6.2013 (Annexure-9) indicating the reason as to why such application could not be filed forthwith and a specific prayer has been made that the order dated 19.6.2013 may be recalled and the proceedings which are pending consideration under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (for short 'the Act') may be decided on merits. The aforesaid application was rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kunda Pratapgarh vide impugned order dated 9.2.2023 holding that the aforesaid application was filed after a substantial delay.
Sri Warsi has drawn the attention of this Court towards a judgment of the Apex Court in re: Sesh Nath Singh and another vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. and another (Civil Appeal No.9198 of 2019) decided on 22.3.2021, referring Para-61, wherein the Apex Court has held that if sufficient cause is shown in the application, said application may be considered and allowed as there cannot be any straight jacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished by the applicant for the delay in taking steps.
Per contra, Sri A.S. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has referred to Section 200 of the Act, which provides that whenever any party to such proceeding neglects to attend on the day specified in the summons or on any day to which the case may have been postponed, the Court may dismiss the case for default or may hear and determine it ex-parte. Sri Tiwari further cites Section 201 of the Act, which provides that no appeal shall lie from an order passed under Section 200 ex-parte or by default. Sri Tiwari has further drawn the attention of this Court towards Section 219 of the Act, which provides alternative remedy i.e. 'Revision' and has submitted that the order impugned may be assailed by the petitioners by filing a revision under Section 219 of the Act and in revision, they may take all pleas and grounds, which are available to them, but instead of availing the alternative statutory remedy, they have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed on the aforesaid ground.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, more particularly Section 219 of the Act, which provides the remedy of revision, without entering into the merits of the issue, I hereby dispose of this writ petition finally at the admission stage giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the revisional authority by filing a revision under Section 219 of the Act along with an application for interim relief within a period of two weeks from today, taking all pleas and grounds which are available to them, and if such a revision is filed, the same shall be heard and decided on merits strictly in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned with expedition preferably within a period of six months and the interim relief application, if any, filed along with the revision, shall be disposed of within a period of three weeks from the date of filing of the revision along with a certified copy of this order.
It is also provided that the parties shall cooperate in the revision proceedings and unnecessary adjournments shall not be sought by any of the parties.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 13.4.2023
Sachin
