Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1596 (ALL)

Shiva Shanakar Chaubey v. Board Of Revenue U. P.

2023-07-05

RAJNISH KUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT Rajnish Kumar, J. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Heard Ms. Akanksha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 3. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.12.1992 passed by the Assistant Collector First Class, Balia and the order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow in Revision/919/2013, by means of which the revision has been dismissed being barred by delay. Consequently this petition. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the brother of the petitioner was doing the pairvi of the case before the Assistant Collector, in which the order was passed on 24.12.1992, but the petitioner had no knowledge of the said order as it was not informed to the petitioner and the petitioner is still in possession of the land in dispute. On coming to know about the aforesaid order in the month of December, 2022 after inspection of the file, the petitioner filed the revision along with application for condonation of delay, which has wrongly been rejected being time barred, whereas, there is no intentional and deliberate delay by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Sakuntala v. State of Karnataka and others (Civil Appeal Nos.1061-1062 of 2019) decided on 28.04.2023 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, while opposing the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has failed to give any sufficient explanation for delay in filing the revision, therefore, the revision has rightly been dismissed. Even otherwise, the petitioner has failed to substantiate his right on the land in dispute. The petition has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds, which is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records. 7. On an application moved by one Shiv Pujan and Sita Ram s/o Ganesh Yadav on 05.07.1991 claiming their rights over the land No.75 and 91 of Village- Navanagar, Pargana and DistrictBalia on the ground that they are in possession on the same since prior to the abolition of the zamindari, the proceedings were instituted. After calling the report from the Tehshildar, who admitted the possession of Shiv Pujan on some part of the land, the order dated 24.12.1992 was passed. After calling the report from the Tehshildar, who admitted the possession of Shiv Pujan on some part of the land, the order dated 24.12.1992 was passed. During the aforesaid proceedings an objection was filed by one Kamal Dev Chaubey claiming his right on some part of the land in dispute on the ground that he along with others is in possession of the land in dispute since long time and they are using the same as their sahan as their houses situated in front of the said land. The objection filed by Kamal Dev was rejected by means of the aforesaid order dated 24.12.1992 on the ground that he may institute the appropriate regular proceedings and claim right on the land in dispute. 8. It has also been noted in the aforesaid order that Kamal Dev has also claimed that the suit under Section 229B is pending for consideration before the appropriate Court. It appears that after passing of the aforesaid order dated 24.12.1992, neither the same was challenged nor regular proceedings were instituted by Kamal Dev or the petitioner. The petitioner, claiming right on the basis of his application, filed a highly time barred revision before the Board of Revenue under Section 333 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, which has been dismissed being time barred by means of the order dated 24.04.2023. The said order along with order dated 24.12.1992 has been assailed in this petition. 9. The only ground taken for condonation of delay in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed along with revision was that the brother of the petitioner was doing the pairvi of the case, who had not given correct information and on coming to know about the order dated 24.12.1992 in December, 2022, the petitioner had filed the revision. A short application of two paragraphs was filed. A short application of two paragraphs was filed. The grounds taken in the application in two paragraphs are extracted herein-in below:- ^^1- ;g fd esjs HkkbZ }kjk eqdnesa dh iSjoh dh tk jgh FkhA mlus eqdnesa ds ckjs esa eq>s dHkh lgh tkudkjh ugha nhA eqdnek lu 1992 esa gh fuLrkfjr gks pqdk FkkA vkt rd gekjk dCtk n[ky pyk vk jgk gS blfy, gesa fuLrkfjr eqdnesa dh tkudkjh ugha gqbZA fnlEcj 2022 esa tkudkjh gqbZ rc eSusa i=koyh dk eqvk;uk djk;k vkSj vf/koDrk ls fof/kd lykg ysdj y[kuÅ tkdj vf/koDrk fu;qDr djds odkyrukek Qhl nsdj ;g fuxjkuh izLrqr dj jgk gwWaA 2- ;g fd ge izkFkhZx.k us i=koyh dk eqvk;uk djkdj vo{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 24-12-1992 dh izekf.kr lR;izfr dks izkIr dj vius vf/koDrk ls U;kf;d lykg ysdj orZeku fuxjkuh ifj"kn ds le{k izLrqr dj jgk gSA** 10. Perusal of the aforesaid grounds indicates that the petitioner has taken a vague ground without disclosing even the name of the brother and if he was not giving the correct information, why the petitioner has not taken the appropriate steps for getting the information for such a long period of about 30 years and as to how he came to know about the order in December, 2022. Therefore, it is apparent that the petitioner has failed to give sufficient explanation for condonation of delay. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sakuntala v. State of Karnataka and others (supra), relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, has observed that being an innocent purchaser of the land, long after its first sale, the appellant is not liable to be ousted therefrom, overlooking the long delay and patent laches on the part of respondent No.5. But the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit of the said judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court because the petitioner has not purchased the land rather he is claiming right only on the basis of possession and it appears that the delay was on the part of the respondent No.5 therein but the delay is on the part of the petitioner herein. 12. 12. Perusal of the grounds of revision, filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue, indicates that the suit under Section 229 B was instituted by the petitioner and others before the Commissioner, in which Shiv Pujan and Sita Ram, who claimed their rights over the land in dispute had also filed an application for impleadment, which was rejected. However, nothing has been said about the fate of said suit and right of the petitioner could have been determined only in the said suit, for which liberty was also granted in the order dated 24.12.1992. 13. The revision was mainly filed on the ground that Shiv Pujan and Sita Ram could not have claimed the rights over the land in dispute because the right under Section 143 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 can be claimed only by the bhumidhar. Admittedly, the petitioner was also not the bhumidhar of the land in dispute. In any case, the grounds taken by the petitioner for condonation of delay are not sufficient for condoning the delay of more than 30 years. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai; (2012) 5 SCC 157 , has held as under:- "24. What colour the expression "sufficient cause" would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay." 15. In view of above and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision/919/2013 and order dated 24.12.1992 do not suffer from any illegality or error, which may call for any interference by this Court. The writ petition is misconceived and lacks merit, which is liable to be dismissed. 16. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.