Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1310 (ALL)

Girija Shankar v. State Of U P

2020-11-10

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Harish Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Sunil Kumar Singh for the Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. This writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 08.09.2000 passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on merits, ex-parte as also the order dated 12.03.2019, whereby an application filed by the petitioner for recall of order dated 12.03.2019, has been dismissed. 3. The writ petition arises out of a suit under Section 202 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act read with Rule 176-A of the Rules framed, thereunder. 4. The proceedings were initiated on the report of the Lekhpal regarding plot no. 212 area 0.016 hectare situated in Village Bharohiya, Pargana Haweli, Tehsil Caimpiarganj, District Gorakhpur. The report states that the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest was recorded under class 3, namely as an asami for more than 10 years and that the land is vacant on the spot; no land revenue has been paid. 5. The petitioners' predecessor-in-interest filed an objection on 22.04.2000 alleging that he was in possession since the time of his ancestors prior to abolition of zamindari and had planted trees over the land which are still standing. 6. Proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act instituted for ejectment had been dropped vide order dated 16.02.1991. Even during consolidation operations in 1960, the name of the objectors was recorded. The proceedings were, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 7. In rejoinder, it was alleged on behalf of the State that land revenue had not been deposited and, therefore, Sections 213 and 219 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act had not been complied with. 8. The trial court finding that the entry of an asami was made in 1407 to 1412 Fasli and that more than 10 years had elapsed since an asami lease could not be for a period greater than 5 years, it directed that the entry under class 3 be expunged and the Gaon Sabha be recorded as it was earlier recorded. It was also observed that no rights could accrue in favour of the objectors on the basis of possession alone. 9. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal on 03.06.2000. It was also observed that no rights could accrue in favour of the objectors on the basis of possession alone. 9. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal on 03.06.2000. On 08.03.2000, none appeared on behalf of the appellants and the Court after hearing the ADGC (Revenue) and finding that the appeal lacked merits, dismissed it. 10. The petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest filed a restoration application on 08.12.2000 alleging that the appeal in fact was fixed for 07.09.2000. The appellants and their counsel appeared on that date and were informed that the matter was being adjourned for 08.11.2000. When they approached the Court on 08.11.2000, it was discovered that the appeal has been dismissed on 08.09.2000. 11. The appellate court has dismissed the restoration application holding that admittedly the appellants had acquired knowledge of the order dated 08.09.2000 on 08.11.2000. They did not file the restoration application within time. The same was filed on 08.11.2000 without any cogent explanation for the delay. The restoration application was accordingly dismissed on the ground of latches. 12. The aforesaid two orders passed at the appellate stage are under challenge in this writ petition. 13. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are asamis since the time of their ancestors prior to the abolition of zamindari. Their names continued to be recorded during consolidation operations and that proceedings for their eviction under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were dropped and the notice in Form 49A was withdrawn. Trees planted by the ancestors of the petitioners are still existing over the plot. 14. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in any case the suit under Section 202 was barred by time in view of Section 204 of the Act. Moreover, as a consequence of the provisions contained in Section 204, the petitioners become bhumidhars with non-transferable rights of the land in question. It is also sought to be argued that a suit under Section 202 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in regular suit should have been filed by the Gaon Sabha. This was not done and, therefore, also the suit was not maintainable. 15. Counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha and the State have supported the impugned orders. 16. This was not done and, therefore, also the suit was not maintainable. 15. Counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha and the State have supported the impugned orders. 16. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 17. At the very outset, it would be relevant to note that the writ petition is reported to suffer from latches of 457 days and there is not a word in the writ petition to explain this inordinate delay in filing it. 18. Although, in view of the prevailing pandemic, limitation has been extended, however, in the case at hand the said extension would not be applicable because the impugned order was passed on 12.03.2019, more than a year before the commencement of the pandemic and the lock-down ordered by the Central Government on 21.03.2020. The writ petition therefore, deserves to be dismissed on the ground of latches. 19. For the same reason, I do not consider it necessary to go into the other arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner on the merits of the case. 20. Since no explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition has been offered by the petitioner in the writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of latches.