Allahabad High Court
Genda Lal vs Board Of Revenue Up At Allahabad And 5 ... on 6 November, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:173544
Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3316 of 2024
Petitioner :- Genda Lal
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue Up At Allahabad And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lok Nath Shukla,Raj Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.Petitioner's lease was cancelled vide order dated 21.2.1994 passed by Additional Commissioner, Etah in a proceeding arising out of Section 198 (4) of Uttar Prdesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
3. Challenge to it was preferred by the petitioner by way of filing a revision petition before the Board of Revenue after about 28 years on 2.12.2022 with an application for condonation of delay.
4. Board of Revenue by impugned order dated 18.3.2024 rejected the application for condonation of delay on ground that there was no proper explanation to condone the extraordinary delay of about 28 years and 9 months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred paragraphs nos.2 to 5 of memo of revision petition and submitted that it was sufficient to condone the delay of about 28 years and 9 months. For reference paragraphs nos.2 to 5 of memo of revision petition are reproduced hereinafter:
" 2. That after passing of the impugned order dated 21.02.1994 by the learned Additional Collector, Etah the revisionist had handed over the entire file to Sri Vidya Bhushan Shukla, Advocate High Court, Allahabad for challenging the said order, who after taking the file from the revisionist assured him that he will file revision before this Hon'ble Court.
3. That thereafter, after some intervals regularly the revisionist had been making contacts with Sri Vidya Bhushan Shukla, Advocate and every time he was assuring that the revision had been filed and the matter will be decided very soon.
4. That lastly when the revisionist tried to make contact with Sri Vidya Bhushan Shukla, Advocate in the last week of August, 2022 his family picked the mobile and informed the revisionist that Sri Vidya Bhushan Shukla, Advocate is no more and he had already died on 08.09.2021.
5. That thereafter the deponent came to Prayagraj and taken the file from the office of late Sri Vidya Bhushan Shukla, Advocate and contacted Sri Raj Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for challenging the impugned order dated 21.2.1994 passed by the Additional Collector, Etah. During the course of discussion Sri Raj Kumar Tiwari, Advocate required some information from the deponent. Thereafter the deponent went back home and collected the said information and provided the same to his counsel on 30.11.2022. Thereafter the present revision has been prepared and drafted and the same is being filed without any further delay. Hence, the delay caused in filing the present revision which is not on account of any negligence or latches on the part of the revisionist but due to the circumstances as mentioned hereinabove, may be condoned in the interest of justice and the same may be treated to have been filed within time and be heard on merits."
6. It is not under dispute that revision petition was filed with an extraordinary delay of about 28 years and 9 months
7. Aforesaid reason to condone such huge delay appears to be vague since the petitioner has failed to provide any proper explanation from 1994 to 2022.
8. It is well settled that normally in order to consider the application for condonation of delay, Court has to adopt a liberal approach instead of pedantic approach. However, when it is a case of extraordinary delay, Court can adopt other approach i.e. strict approach and for that reference may be taken from a recent judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. & Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) 2024 INSC 286. Relevant paragraph 26 of it is reproduced hereinafter:
26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:
(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy ratherthan the right itself;
(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist aftera fixed period of time;
(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;
(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;
(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;
(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;
(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and
(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision."
9. In aforesaid circumstances, Court is of considered opinion that above referred explanation to condone the extraordinary delay of about 28 years and 9 months is not sufficient.
10. Petitioner lacks bonafide, therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order whereby the Board of Revenue has rejected the revision petition on ground that it was filed without any proper explanation with extraordinary delay of about 28 years and 9 months.
11. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.11.2024
SB
