Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 940 (ALL)

Ram Prakash v. State of U. P.

2016-03-15

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2016
JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya,J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have come to this Court challenging the order purported to have been passed under sections 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act. The claim of the petitioners was rejected and, therefore, the petitioners filed a revision and the revision has also been rejected on 5.8.2015. 2. The main grounds for rejection of the application for correction under sections 33/39 of the Act are that the said application has been filed after a long delay and the petitioners have not given the name of their ancestors. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners for Fasli years 1359 and 1360, the name of petitioners' ancestors have been shown yet the same has not been considered only on the ground that the petitioners have not declared the name of the ancestors who were occupying the land in question there since. 3. In my view, the reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner first of all is of approaching for correction after a long time and secondly, the petitioners have not given the names of their ancestors. So for as long time is concerned, there is no limitation provided under sections 33/39 of the U.P.Land Revenue Act and further so far as the giving of the names of the ancestors of the petitioners is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if given an opportunity, he will furnish the names of their ancestors and they may be permitted to file a fresh application under sections 33/39 of the Act. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners may make a fresh application under sections 33/39 of the Act removing the lacuna as pointed out in the order dated 16.7.2011 and the said application, if filed may be considered and decided in accordance with law without unnecessary delay. It is made clear that the petitioners' fresh application under sections 33/39 shall not be thrown out only on the ground that earlier such application of the petitioners has been rejected vide order dated 16.7.2011 and revisional order dated 5.8.2015. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.