Allahabad High Court
Uma Shankar Thru. Power Of Attorney ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. ... on 14 May, 2024
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36814
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 513 of 2024
Petitioner :- Uma Shankar Thru. Power Of Attorney Holder His Suler Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Verma,Ram Tirath Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Gram Sabha.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 28.06.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 i.e. Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. in revision No. REV/1032/2023/Barabanki, computerized case no. R20230412001032 (Umar Shankar vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Faizabad Division, Faizabad) and the impugned order dated 04.04.2018 passed by respondent no. 3 i.e. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Division, Faizabad (now Ayodhya) in revision no. 786 of 2015, computerized case no. C2015040000786 (Sone Lal vs. Jeete).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the patta of Gata No. 215 area 0.246 hectare was allotted in favour of one Sone Lal, the land on which the petitioner has continuously been in possession since last more than two decades and living there by constructing a house and plantation of trees.
4. It is further submitted that against the allotment of patta of Gata No. 215 area 0.246 hectare, the petitioner had filed a case under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1950'), for cancellation of patta and the Additional Collector, Barabanki by its order dated 06.05.2015 had allowed the application/case preferred by the petitioner under Section 198(4) of the Act, 1950 and cancelled the patta granted in favour of late Sone Lal (the legal heirs/representatives of Sone Lal have been arrayed as respondent nos. 6, 7 & 8 to the present writ petition).
5. It is further submitted that against the order dated 06.05.2015, Sone lal preferred a revision under Section 333 of the Act, 1950, arraying the father of the petitioner i.e. Sarvjeet @ Jeetey as respondent and after hearing both the sides i.e. Sone Lal and the father of the petitioner, the revision was allowed in favour of Sone Lal vide impugned order dated 04.04.2018.
6. It is further submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge about the impugned order dated 04.04.2018 passed in the revision preferred by the Sone Lal as the father of the petitioner (Sarvjeet @ Jeetey) was respondent there and after his demise, the petitioner was not substituted and he had no knowledge about the pendency and decision of the said revision.
7. It is further submitted that the petitioner has come to know about the impugned revisional order dated 04.04.2018 on 22.12.2022 when the respondent nos. 3 to 6 started creating interference in the peaceful possession of the petitioner and immediately within a period of four months, the revision has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 333 of the Act, 1950, which was dismissed on the ground of delay of five years in filing the revision though, the delay was not intentional and the reason has been mentioned in the affidavit filed along with the application for condonation of delay which has not been considered by the revisional court and passed the impugned order dated 28.06.2023.
8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel and counsel for the Gram Sabha have submitted that the delay was not explained properly in the affidavit filed by the petitioner along with the delay condonation application and the same has rightly been rejected.
9. It is further submitted that when no interim orders were passed in favour of the petitioner in the case filed under Section 198(4) of the Act, 1950 in the year 2003, the father of the petitioner (Sarvjeet @ Jeetey) had preferred a suit in the year 2004.
10. It is further submitted that the impugned revisional order dated 04.04.2018 passed in the revision preferred by Sone Lal i.e. father of respondent nos. 3 to 6 in the present writ petition was decided by the revisional court by taking into consideration the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) in suit preferred by father of the petitioner against Sone Lal as the suit was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) by its judgment/order dated 05.08.2010 giving a finding that the father of the petitioner (Sarvjeet @ Jeetey) was not in possession of Gata No. 215 area 0.246 hectare.
11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the position which emerges out in the present case is that Gata No. 215 area 0.246 hectare was alloted in favour of Late Sone Lal (the father of respondent nos. 3 to 6 to the present writ petition). The father of the petitioner while filing an application/case under Section 198(4) of the Act, 1950 had alleged that he was in possession from the last more than two decades and residing on the said land by constructing a house and had planted trees also.
12. After filing the application/case under Section 198(4) of the Act, 1950 in the year 2003, the father of the petitioner (Sarvjeet @ Jeetey) had also filed a suit in the year 2004 for permanent injunction against Sone Lal for the same land. The said suit was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) by its judgment/order dated 05.08.2010 as the father of the petitioner had failed to prove his possession on the said land and the judgment/order dated 05.08.2010 had never been challenged by the father of the petitioner (Sarvjeet @ Jeetey). The said judgment was placed by Sone Lal in the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act, 1950 as it has been referred in the order dated 06.05.2015 but no finding was given and merely on the basis of the report submitted by the Tehsildar, the orders were passed, allowing the application of father of the petitioner under Section 198(4) of the Act, 1950.
13. The finding given in the impugned order dated 04.04.2018 in the revision preferred by Sone Lal was on the basis of judgment/order dated 05.08.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) which has neither been disclosed by the petitioner in the writ petition nor denied the same and it is always judicial pronouncement which will prevail over any report submitted by the Tehsildar so, there is no illegality in the impugned revisional order dated 04.04.2018.
14. Now the delay on which the revision of the petitioner has been dismissed is concerned, the submission of counsel for the petitioner is that his father i.e. late Sarvjeet @ Jeetey was party in the revision preferred by Sone Lal and after his demise, the petitioner was not substituted and he had no knowledge about the pendency and the decision in the said revision is not acceptable for the reason that the revision preferred by Sone Lal was decided vide impugned order dated 04.04.2018 and the father of the petitioner has expired on 29.09.2021 i.e. after more than three and half years of passing of the impugned order dated 04.04.2018, hence, there is no question of either substituting the petitioner or to inform the petitioner about the impugned order dated 04.04.2018.
15. On being asked from learned counsel for the petitioner whether the father of the petitioner had ever moved or initiated any proceedings against the impugned revisional order dated 04.04.2018, he has very fairly submitted that except the revision preferred by the petitioner, no other proceedings were ever preferred by the father of the petitioner.
16. The reason assigned for delay in the affidavit filed along with the application for condonation of delay is not tenable on the face of it and as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649, it is unexplainable inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the revision. Relevant paragraph no. 15 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
'There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, first one wants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation'
17. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, no interference is called for in the revisional order dated 28.06.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 in revision No. REV/1032/2023/Barabanki, computerized case no. R20230412001032 (Umar Shankar vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Faizabad Division, Faizabad) and the impugned order dated 04.04.2018 passed by respondent no. 3 in revision no. 786 of 2015, computerized case no. C2015040000786 (Sone Lal vs. Jeete).
18. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.5.2024
Nitesh
