Hima Kohli, J.

C.M. Nos. 15331/2006 (for restoration) & 15332/2006 (Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act)

The present applications are filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for recall of the order dated 3.1.2006, by which the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, as also for condonation of delay. The aforesaid applications came to be filed on 7.11.2006.

It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the writ petition was admitted, vide order dated 25.7.1994 and came up for regular hearing in the year 2006. The petitioners Counsel informed the petitioner that, as and when the case would reach for hearing, he would intimate her about the position and hence, the petitioner relied on her Counsel to follow up the case in Court. However, as the Counsel, who was engaged earlier, did not give a satisfactory reply to the petitioner, she engaged a new Counsel on 21.9.2006 and requested him to inspect the case file and inform her about the status of the case. The newly engaged Counsel inspected the case file on 28.9.2006 and applied for a certified copy of the relevant order dated 3.1.2006 which was provided on 10.10.2006. Counsel for the petitioner states that immediately thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present applications praying inter alia for setting aside the order dated 3.1.2006 and for condonation of delay, if any, in filing the application for restoration.

No reply has been filed to the present applications till date, though notice was issued on these applications on 12.12.2006. Thereafter, innumerable adjournments were sought on behalf of the petitioner for addressing arguments, due to which the present applications have remained pending.

Considering the submissions made in the present applications and keeping in mind the fact that none was present even on behalf of the respondent when the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 3.1.2006, the applications are allowed on the ground that just and sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant for recall of order dated 3.1.2006. The delay in filing the application seeking recall of the order dated 3.1.2006 is condoned. The order dated 3.1.2006, by which the present writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original position.

The applications are disposed of.

W.P.(C) 3051/1994

1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing of the order dated 16.8.1988, passed by the Consolidation Officer, allowing the application filed by the respondents for mutation of the land, subject matter of the writ petition, in their favour and the order dated 25.2.1994 passed by the Additional Collector on an appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 64 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 against the order dated 16.8.1988 allowing the mutation in favour of the respondents in respect of the land, and finally, the order dated 25.4.1994 passed by the Financial Commissioner on a second appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 66 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, dismissing the said appeal as devoid of merits.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one Shri Sri Lal, father of the petitioner, was the co-owner of agricultural land measuring 69 bighas 4 biswas situated within the revenue estate of Village Alipur, Delhi comprised in Khasra No. 566(4-16), 570 (4-16), 635 (4-16), 636 (0-3), 637/2 (4-11), 638 (4-11), 639 (48), 640 (4-16), 641 (5-19), 645 (2-9), 648 (4-16), 649 (4-16), 652 (4-16), 990 (4-16), 1016 (3-5), 1017 (1-12) and 1029 (3-13).

3. The father of the petitioner expired in the year 1965. Vide mutation case No. 1339 dated 23.4.1966, mutation was sanctioned in favour of Smt. Pato, mother of late Shri Sri Lal, and Shakuntala, minor unmarried daughter of Shri Sri Lal. Thereafter, the petitioner was married in the year 1977. The respondents herein filed an application after 22 years, on 14.1.1988 during the course of consolidation proceeding