WPMS/276/2005
2021 Latest Caselaw 1026 UK

                   Office Notes,
                reports, orders or
                 proceedings or
SL. No   Date                                          COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
                  directions and
                Registrar's order
                 with Signatures
                                     MCC No.579 of 2020 (Restoration Application)
                                     CLMA No.9589 of 2020 (Delay Condonation Appl., in restoration application)
                                     In
                                     WPMS No.276 of 2005
                                     Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel, for the State/respondent nos.1 and 2.

Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate, for the respondent no.3.

This writ petition was instituted by the petitioner before this Court on 09.02.2005, whereby the petitioner, has given a challenge to the impugned judgment dated 16.02.1993, which was passed by the District Magistrate, Haridwar, in Revision No.48 of 1992, "Dile Ram Vs. Gram Sabha", as well as to the judgment dated 31.08.1992, which was passed by the respondent no.2 in Case No.125 of 1992, "Gram Sabha Vs. Balwant", which was drawn against the petitioner alleging that he was an unauthorized occupant on the land, which otherwise stood vested with the "Gaon Sabha" under Section 117 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

This writ petition after grant of an interim order on 26.07.2005, remain pending till it was dismissed for want of prosecution on 20.09.2013.

The restoration application itself has been preferred with a delay of 7 years and 44 days and the reasons, which has been given in the restoration application, as well as in the application for condonation of delay, is that the previous Counsel has not informed the petitioner and due to lack of knowledge, as pleaded in the paragraph no.3 of the restoration application, the restoration application could not be filed within time.

It is not an isolated conduct of the petitioner of approaching the courts at a belated stage taking all defences of lack of knowledge to the counsel to file a restoration application, after a period of 7 years and 44 days. But rather previous conduct itself shows that the writ petition itself was preferred in the year 2005 against an order of 1993, i.e. almost after 12 years of passing of the impugned order, the Court's are not supposed to come to the rescue to those litigants, who are sleeping over their rights or who by virtue of approaching the court at a belated stage are trying to take an advantage of unauthorised occupancy of land, which otherwise stood vested with the "Gaon Sabha".

Hence, I am not inclined to condone the delay, which is of 7 years and 44 days, which has chance in filing the restoration application seeking recall of the order dated 20.09.2013. Therefore, the restoration application is hereby rejected, consequently the writ petition, would be deemed to have been dismissed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 19.03.2021

NR/