Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1078 (ALL)

Rama Shankar Lal v. State of U. P.

2023-04-19

JAYANT BANERJI

body2023
JUDGMENT Jayant Banerji, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4. Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.3- Gram Panchayat. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.12.2022 passed in Case No. RES/3604/22 Azamgarh arising out of Computerized Case No. AL20221506003604 Rama Shankar Lal and others v. Gram Panchayat and others by the Member, Board of Revenue U.P. Prayagraj (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to act upon the order impugned." 3. The order impugned appears to have been passed on the restoration application dated 14.11.2022 filed by the petitioners for restoring the revision that was dismissed on 13.12.2013. The restoration application was filed along with a delay condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The reason for delay mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is sought to be explained in paragraph nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the affidavit which are quoted below:- "2.That the applicants preferred Revision against the order dated 11.7.2007 passed by Up Ziladhikari Ballia and for approval of Resolution dated 26.6.2006 and after hearing the Hon'ble Member of this Hon'ble court has been pleased to pass the stay order dated 24.7.2007 and the same was extended on several dates. 3.That the applicants were assured that the stay order has been existing because their counsel has been extending the aforesaid order time to Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:83252 time. 4.That on 18.7.2022 the deponent came to Prayagraj for some personal work and after arrival at Prayagraj, he enquired about his case from the office and then he found that his revision has been dismissed in default on 13.12.2013 by the Hon'ble Member Jaswant Singh." 4. 4.That on 18.7.2022 the deponent came to Prayagraj for some personal work and after arrival at Prayagraj, he enquired about his case from the office and then he found that his revision has been dismissed in default on 13.12.2013 by the Hon'ble Member Jaswant Singh." 4. The order dated 13.12.2013, against which restoration application was filed is quoted below:- ^^U;k;ky; jktLo ifj"kn] m0iz0 bykgkckn lnL;] tloar flag ¼vkbZ0,0,l0½ fuxjkuh la0% 120@06&07 vUrxZr /kkjk&333 m0iz0 t0fo0 ,oa Hkw0O;k0vf/k0 jek 'kadj yky vkfn cuke xzke iapk;r vkfn xzke&fpydgj] rglhy&jlMk] tuin&cfykA fu.kZ; izLrqr fuxjkuh] fuxjkuhdrkZ.k }kjk U;k;ky; miftykf/kdkjh jlMk] ftyk cfy;k }kjk fu.khZr okn la[;k&8@2005 xzke iapk;r cuke jek 'kadj yky vkfn varxZr /kkjk&161 ;w0ih0 tSM0,0 ,.M ,y0vkj0 ,DV lEcfU/kr ,oa fLFkr Hkwfe xzke fpygdj] rglhy jlMk] ,y0vkj0 ,DV lEcfU/kr ,oa fLFkr Hkwfe xzke fpydgj] rglhy jlMk] ftyk cfy;k esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 11@07@07 ds fo:) ;ksftr dh x;h gSA esjs }kjk i=koyh dk lE;d~ voyksdu fd;k x;kA ;g fuxjkuh fiNys 7 o"kZ ls yfEcr gS fuxjkuh dk fuLrkj.k xq.knks"k ij fd;k tk jgk gS D;ksafd fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk fuxjkuh ds fuLrkj.k esa :fp ugha fy;k tk jgk gSA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls fofnr gksrk gS fd voj U;k;ky; }kjk xzke lHkk dh Hkwfe ls fofue; dks bl vk/kkj ij fujLr dj fn;k fd fofue; /kkjk&132 tehankjh fouk'k vf/kfu;e ls vPNkfnr Hkwfe dk fd;k tk jgk FkkA voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fd;k x;k vkns'k ,d U;k;ksfpr vkns'k gS D;ksafd /kkjk&132 ls vkPNkfnr Hkwfe ij dHkh Hkh fdlh i{k dks dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gks ldrs ftl dkj.k voj U;k;ky; }kjk vius Lor% Li"V vkns'k esa fofue; dks fujLr fd;s tkus dk vkns'k ,d U;k;ksfpr vkns'k gS ftlesa gLr{ksi dh dksbZ vko';drk u gksus ds dkj.k fuxjkuh fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij fuxjkuhdrkZ dh fuxjkuh fujLr dh tkrh gSA voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 11@07@07 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA LFkxu ;fn dksbZ gks] fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'k dh izekf.kr izfr ds lkFk voj U;k;ky; dk vfHkys[k okil Hkstk tk;sA ckn vko';d dk;Zokgh i=koyh nkf[ky nWQ~rj dh tk;sA fnukad 13@12@13 ¼tloar flag½ vkbZ0,0,l0 lnL; ¼U;kf;d½** 5. It is evident from perusal of the order dated 13.12.2013 that the revision was pending for the past seven years and the revisionists were not taking any interest in disposal of the revision. It is evident from perusal of the order dated 13.12.2013 that the revision was pending for the past seven years and the revisionists were not taking any interest in disposal of the revision. The court proceeded to look into the merits of the revision and noticed that the exchange of land that was being sought by the revisionists was covered under Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 and as such, with regard to that land, no Bhumidhari right could be claimed and, hence no exchange was permissible. The cause for delay has not been sufficiently explained and, no satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the restoration application after a period of nine years has been mentioned. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgement of the Supreme Court reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 (Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and others) and another judgement of the Supreme Court reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 (N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy) to contend that nine years delay in filing the restoration application ought to be condoned. 7. Sri Acharya Rajneesh Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition also on the ground that against the order dismissing an application for exchange under Section 161 of the Act, 1950, no revision would be maintainable, but an appeal would lie as is evident from serial no. 13 of Schedule-II of the Act, 1950. 8. The judgement of the Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners states the law that in appropriate cases, the court may condone the delay in the interest of justice. 9. However, in the present case, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to demonstrate any patent illegality or arbitrariness in the order dated 13.12.2013, passed by the Board of Revenue that may merit interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The conduct of the petitioners in enjoying the interim order during the pendency of the revision without any attempt to follow up of the matter is reflected in the order dated 13.12.2013 itself. The present writ petition is frivolous one and is, accordingly, dismissed.