Allahabad High Court
Ram Prasad vs D.D.C. on 16 August, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165020
Court No. - 48
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3632 of 1986
Petitioner :- Ram Prasad
Respondent :- D.D.C.
Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K. Mishra,A.K. Misra,Abhishek Chauhan,P.K. Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- V.K.S. Chaudhary,Kunal Ravi Singh,Kural Ravi Singh,Manjari Singh,R.S. Maurya,Raj Deo Yadav,S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Restoration Application No.4 of 2019 and Delay Condonation Application No.3 of 2019
Order on Delay Condonation Application
1. In the present case, writ petition was filed by original petitioner Ram Prasad Tiwari in the year 1986, wherein order dated 12.02.1986 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation was impugned.
2. During the pendency of this writ petition, original petitioner died on 13.12.1997, however, their legal heirs have not taken any steps for their impleadment and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution by an order dated 23.04.2010 passed by this Court, for reference the said order is reproduced hereinafter :-
"Case called out in the revised list.
The Court has waited for sometime. However, none has appeared for the petitioner.
In the circumstances, the Court has no option but to dismiss the Writ Petition for want of prosecution.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated."
3. The applicant in present application has approached this Court by way of filing the above referred application on 01.12.2019 i.e. about after 9 years, claiming that the original petitioner has executed a sale-deed dated 26.11.1984 in their favour of certain portion of land in dispute and their name was mutated in revenue records on 13.01.1986 and since then they are in cultivatory possession over the land, however, neither the copy of sale-deed nor the order of mutation was placed along with present application.
4. In the application it is further mentioned that on 10.10.2019 when their possession was forced to disturb only then they came to know about the writ petition and after further inquiry they came to know that writ petition was already dismissed on 23.04.2010 and on legal advice they have approached this Court by way of filing the present application as well as impleadment application in the writ petition.
5. The aforesaid application was contested by one Kanhaiya Lal S/o original respondent No.7 in the writ petition (since deceased) that the impleadment application as well as application for condonation of delay to file recall application are not maintainable at the instance of the applicants.
6. The applicants have never approached any forum or the Authority to become party and despite having knowledge of the death of original petitioner on 13.12.1997 still they have not approached before this Court within time or any Authority. The explanation of delay is vague and prayed that applications be rejected.
7. Learned counsel for applicants submits that they have right to contest since they are in possession of land in pursuance of a sale-deed made in favour of them by original petitioner. They had no knowledge about the pendency of writ petition and about the death of original petitioner and as soon as they came to know, they have approached this Court.
8. The above submissions are opposed by learned counsel for one of the original respondents who referred averments made in counter affidavit as well as placed reliance on a judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Second Appeal No.- 1630 of 1992 (Sri Kishan Vs. Kishan Singh, order dated 14.02.2013).
9. Heard counsel for parties and perused the record.
10. As referred above it is not under dispute that original petitioner has died during pendency of this writ petition way back in the year 1997. Neither legal heirs of original petitioner nor the applicants have tried to become parties and, therefore, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution by an order dated 23.10.2010 i.e. after 13 years of death of original petitioner.
11. There is further delay that the applicants after about 9 years have approached this Court by way of filing the present condonation of delay in filing a recall application and as referred above the reason for condone the huge delay of at least 9 years is not only vague but would not fall under the category of sufficient cause.
12. There is substance in the argument of learned counsel for legal heirs of one of original respondent that the applicants not only failed to approach this court within reasonable time despite they have knowledge about the death of original petitioner but they have no locus to agitate their right at belated stage. The arguments have certain support from Sri Kishan (supra) also.
13. In view of the above discussion and on basis of factual background and since the applicants were not vigil towards their right and they were in long slumber before they awake at belated stage and approach this Court after 9 years and since reasons given for condonation of delay are vague as well as they have no locus to file this application. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed, both on locus and on merit, consequently the application for recall is also rejected. No order is required to be passed on impleadment application.
Order Date :- 16.8.2023
P. Pandey
