Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1144 (ALL)

Rajit Ram v. State of U. P.

2024-04-27

MANISH KUMAR

body2024
JUDGMENT : MANISH KUMAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Gram Sabha and Sri Hemand Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned judgment/ order dated 08.01.2024 passed by Respondent No. 4 in Revision No. 1202/2023 (Rajit Ram vs. State of U.P. & Others) under Section 333 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act, 1950’) and impugned order dated 22.05.2023 passed by Respondent No. 6 rejecting the application for recall dated 9.6.2022 in Case No. 161/215/54/210 filed under Section 229 (B) of the Act, 1950 and with a further prayer to direct the respondent not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner on Gata No. 233 of area 0.316 hectares which is in possession of the petitioner for about 20 years, situated at Village Kondari, Pargana Haveli and Tehsil-Sadar, District Faizabad/Ayodhya, and further to direct the Respondent No. 4 to rehear/reconsider the Revision No. 1202/2023 on merits and also direct the Respondent No. 6 to decide the suit for declaration under Section 229-B of the Act, 1950 after restoring the same to its original number by allowing the application for recall dated 09/06/2022 after condoning the delay, on merits expeditiously. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has continuously been in possession of Gata No. 233 area 0.316 hectare for last 20 years which is entered as Naveen Parti Land of Gram Sabha in the revenue records. In pursuance of Section 122-B (4F) of the Act, 1950, the petitioner being a schedule caste having occupied it from or before May, 13, 2007 i.e. prior to 5th May, 2007 would be Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami but when the Gaon Sabha was interfering in possession of the petitioner, the petitioner filed a suit under Section 229-B of the Act, 1950. 4. It is further submitted that in the suit the objections were preferred by the Gram Sabha and thereafter the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 18.06.2013. 4. It is further submitted that in the suit the objections were preferred by the Gram Sabha and thereafter the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 18.06.2013. Against the order dated 18.06.2013 the petitioner had preferred a recall application on 9.6.2022 mentioning that due to the illness the petitioner had filed the application with delay but the same was rejected on the ground of delay by the order 22.5.2025 and have not accepted the delay as explained by the petitioner without assigning the reasons. Against the order dated 22.05.2023 the petitioner had preferred a revision, which has also been dismissed by impugned order dated 8.1.2022 upholding the order dated 22.05.2023. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Section 122-B (4F) of the Act, 1950 as he has continuously been in possession of the land in dispute since prior to 5th May, 2007, whereas, the cut off date under the statute i.e. 13.05.2007. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a agriculture labour as the father of the petitioner is land owner but the petitioner is living separately and he falls under the definitions of agriculture labour as define in Section 198(1) of the Act, 1950 and the land of the father cannot be taken into consideration as far as the rights of the petitioner are concerned and in support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 7.2.2017 passed in the case of Om Prakash and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 7. It is further submitted that the petitioner has continuously been harvesting crops / agricultural activities on the said land and simultaneously he has argued that he planted the trees on the said land. 8. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 7. It is further submitted that the petitioner has continuously been harvesting crops / agricultural activities on the said land and simultaneously he has argued that he planted the trees on the said land. 8. On the other hand learned counsel for the Gram Sabha and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel have submitted that the recall application was preferred by the petitioner with the delay of 9 years without moving any application for condonation of delay even in the recall application just 1/2 line has been mentioned that he was not well or he was seriously ill without disclosing the illness or any medical documents in support thereof, so the application has rightly been rejected by the court concerned i.e. Respondent No. 6 and the revisional order has rightly been passed by the Respondent No. 4 and there is no illegality in the orders. The unexplained inordinate delay deprives the petitioner as he was sleeping over his right and in support of his submission learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the judgment dated 18.04.2024 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and Others in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 30152 of 2018 and Civil Appeal No. 5027 of 2024. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties, the position which emerges out in the present case is that in the suit filed under Section 229-B of the Act, 1950 by the petitioner nowhere mentioned that since when he was in possession of the said land. He simply stated in the suit that he has been in possession prior to 5th May, 2007 i.e. 8 days prior to the cut off date. The petitioner had also not filed any document in support of his submission regarding possession on the said land prior to the cut off date mentioned in Section 122-B(4F) of the Act, 1950 i.e. 13.05.2007. In the suit the petitioner had not disclosed what activity he was carrying out on the said land either agricultural or had planted trees. The petitioner had also not filed any document in support of his submission regarding possession on the said land prior to the cut off date mentioned in Section 122-B(4F) of the Act, 1950 i.e. 13.05.2007. In the suit the petitioner had not disclosed what activity he was carrying out on the said land either agricultural or had planted trees. It is not disclosed because the petitioner till date is not sure about the activity on the said land for the reason he has stated that he was doing the agricultural activity and at the same time he is saying that he had planted the trees on the said land. 10. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner to establish that he was agriculture labour belonging to Schedule Caste Category is not applicable in the facts of the present case. The petitioner in the suit had not disclosed this fact that his father owns land in his favour and he was not cultivating the said land but for the first time in the present writ petition the petitioner has disclosed rather admitted that there is agricultural land in the name of his father but to establish himself as a agriculture labour he has stated that he is living separately but he has not whispered even a single word whether he was cultivating the said land or not and the judgment which has been relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Om Prakash and Ors. (Supra) the writ petition was dismissed. 11. The petitioner has failed to establish that he has been continuously in possession of the said land since prior to the cut off date May 13, 2007 either in the suit or before this Court as he has not filed any document in support of his submission in the present writ petition. 12. The petitioner has waited for 9 years and filed the recall application thereafter. The petitioner had not filed the delay condonation application alongwith the recall application but in Para 2 of the recall application the reason for delay had been mentioned: 13. 12. The petitioner has waited for 9 years and filed the recall application thereafter. The petitioner had not filed the delay condonation application alongwith the recall application but in Para 2 of the recall application the reason for delay had been mentioned: 13. The petitioner had neither disclosed the nature of illness he was suffering from for last 9 years nor enclosed any medical documents in support of the bare averments made in the recall application, even before this Court nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner regarding his illness and as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board and others vs. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 , which has been followed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 18.04.2024; in the case of Mrinmoy Maity (Supra), the relevant Para of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board i.e. Para 16 is quoted herein-below: “16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant -a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.” 14. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant -a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.” 14. With regard to the aforesaid stated principle of law, the petitioner had not disclosed the nature of his illness in the recall application nor any medical documents enclosed in support thereof and he sat for 9 years and latches and in absence of any adequate reason the petitioner approached the Court at his own leisure or pleasure and this Court finds that there is no illegality in the order impugned dated 22.05.2023 & 08.01.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 6 and 4 respectively and no interference is called for. 15. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.