Petitions under Article 227 must be filed without unreasonable delay; failure to provide justifications for delay can lead to dismissal.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)

CM Nos.29190/2021 & 29191/2021(both for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications are disposed of.

CM(M) 582/2021

3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the judgment dated 21st December, 2018 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi in Case No.133/2014 and Case No.134/2014 both titled as Gaon Sabha Ibrahimpur & Anr. Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors..

4. The two petitions under Section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 in respect of Khasra Nos. 25(6-1) and 400 (4-16) situated in Village Ibrahimpur, Delhi were filed on behalf of the respondents, claiming that they were in physical cultivatory possession over the land for last more than three years and therefore they have acquired bhumidari rights. During the pendency of the proceedings, one of the original petitioners, Balbir Singh expired and his legal heirs, Kamal Singh, Bijender Singh and Mahesh Chand were brought on record. Subsequently, Kamal Singh one of the legal heirs of Balbir Singh expired and his legal heirs were also brought on record. Subsequently, the remaining two legal heirs Bijender Singh and Mahesh Chand also expired during the pendency of the petition and applications under Order XXII Rule 3 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (CPC) for taking on record their legal heirs were filed and the said applications were allowed by the order dated 28th May, 2013 passed by the Revenue Assistant (RA). It was noted in the said order that the counsel appearing on behalf of Gaon Sabha has no objection to the said applications for impleadment of legal heirs and the application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT being allowed.

5. An appeal was filed against the said order before the District Magistrate and Collector, who vide order dated 17th January, 2014 dismissed the said appeal filed by the Gaon Sabha holding that the RA had allowed the impleadment of legal heirs not just on the basis of no-objection given by the counsel appearing on behalf of Gaon Sabha, but also upon applying his mind to the averments made in the application. The relevant extracts from the said order are given below:

"As regards, the plea of the Gaon Sabha that some of the petitioner before the Revenue Assistant had expired and application for substitution was filed lately and that `no objection' was incorrectly recorded from the side of Gaon Sabha by the Revenue Assistant. On this issue, counsel for the respondent has submitted that as per order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. and Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT , the Trial Court had power to condone the delay in moving the application and to set-aside the abetment, if any. The impugned order shows that the application U/o 22 Rules 3 & 9 C.P.C. coupled with an application U/s 5 of LIMITATION ACT was filed with supporting affidavit. While allowing the application, the Revenue Assistant has not only recorded the `no objection' given by the counsel for Gaon Sabha to the allowing of the application, rather has also considered the averments made in the application and reasons for condonation of delay in filing the application. Revenue Assistant has further recorded that ends of justice will meet, if LRs are taken on record and delay in filing the respective application is condoned. So it is not the case that the Revenue Assistant has allowed the application only on the basis of alleged `no objection', rather the Revenue Assistant has applied its mind and has exercised his discretionary powers and allowed the application for substitution of LRs of deceased petitioner before the Revenue Assistant. So