Allahabad High Court
Shripal And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy Revenue ... on 2 May, 2024
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34263-DB
Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3988 of 2024
Petitioner :- Shripal And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghufran Hussain
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-opposite parties.
2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to opposite parties no.6 to 8 is dispensed with.
3. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayer:-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite party no.4 to enter the names of petitioners in the revenue records in pursuance of Parwana issued by the opposite party no.2 on 23.09.2020, as contained in Annexure no.2 to the writ petition."
4. It is the case of the petitioners that father of the petitioners had filed Suit No.209/344/129, Tulsi Vs. Hari Lal and others, under Section 229B/209 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 for declaration of sirdhari right over Plot No.1907, admeasuring 1 Bigha, 7 Biswa and 10 Biswansi and for possession of the same. The said Suit was dismissed on 31.07.1971. Aggrieved by the said order, father of the petitioners preferred an appeal bearing No.333 in the court of Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad. The Additional Commissioner vide order dated 05.07.1977 allowed the appeal and decreed the Suit.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, one Hari Lal preferred second appeal bearing No.99/(z) of 1976-77/Barabanki, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 23.07.1979. Hari Lal did not challenge the order passed by the Board of Revenue and it became final between the parties. However, the legal heirs of Hari Lal filed Writ Petition No.19763 (MS) of 2016 before this Court, which too was dismissed by this Court vide judgement and order dated 06.08.2018. The petitioners' name have not yet been recorded in the revenue records, therefore, they moved a representation to the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, who has written a letter dated 23.09.2020 to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nawabganj, Barabanki for getting the entry of the name of the petitioners in the revenue records, however, no steps have been taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nawabganj, Barabanki till date.
6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of written instructions sent by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barabanki dated 25.04.2024, has stated that after the order passed by the Writ Court, a review application has been filed, which is pending as is evident from the screenshot of the website of the Allahabad High Court and it was last listed on 29.10.2021. Therefore, amaldaramad has not been made in favour of the petitioners.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out paragraph 10 of the order dated 06.08.2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.19673 (MS) of 2016, Ram Singh and others vs. Board of Revenue and others, which was filed challenging the order dated 23.07.1979 passed by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal No.99 of 1976-77.
8. The judgement and order of this Court has been perused by us. Paragraphs 10, 11, 12 of 13 of the said judgement are being quoted herein below:-
"10. In the case at hand, after hearing the counsel for the contesting parties the second appeal of Hari Lal, the father of the petitioners was dismissed on 23.7.1979. The father of the petitioner died in the year 2001. Challenging the said order the present writ petition has been filed by the legal heirs of Hari Lal on 21.8.2016, after almost 38 years from the date of impugned order and 15 years after the death of Hari Lal.
11. In paragraph 23 of the writ petition it has been vaguely stated by the petitioners that the order impugned in the present writ petition was not in their knowledge and it was only when the private respondents started interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute, necessity arose to file the present writ petition.
12. During his life time Hari Lal chose not to challenge the impugned judgment and order. It is not the case of the petitioner that Hari Lal was not aware of the impugned judgment and order dated 23.7.1979.
13. The delay has to be explained by cogent, convincing and persuasive explanation to justify the condonation of delay. In the case at hand, the cause of action, if any, accrued to the petitioner way back in the year 1979 when the appeal preferred by Hari Lal was dismissed. In the writ petition there is no reasonable or satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of 38 years in filing the writ petition."
9. It is evident that the writ petition was dismissed by this Court on the ground of inordinate delay as the legal heirs of Hari Lal approached this Court after 38 years of passing of the order in second appeal by the Board of Revenue.
10. This writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki, opposite party no.4, to ensure entry of the petitioners recorded in the revenue record within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
.
(Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Sangeeta Chandra, J.)
Order Date :- 2.5.2024
Rao/-
