Back
2019 Supreme(All) 401
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Sardar Ahmad (Since Deceased And Substituted By Lrs.) And Others - Appellants
Vs.
Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division And Others - Respondents
Writ - C No. 1523 of 1987
Decided On : 29-03-2019
V.P. Mathur, Adv., Swati Agrawal, Adv., Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and the need for a satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Substitution of Legal Heirs - Act 1960, Act 1951 - [Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, Section 3; Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, Section 240(g)] - The court rejected the delay condonation application for substitution of legal heirs of respondents 4 to 13 as the delay ranged from 8 to 21 years, and the explanation provided was not satisfactory. The writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was dismissed as abated and on merits.
Fact of the Case:
The application sought substitution of legal heirs of respondents 4 to 13 along with delay condonation. The contesting respondents had died between 1989 to 2000, and the writ petition stood abated. The writ petition was filed to quash orders declaring surplus land of the petitioners, which were passed in the 1960s and 1980s.
Finding of the Court:
The delay condonation application was rejected as the explanation for the delay was not satisfactory. The writ petition was dismissed as abated and on merits, as the court found no reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the lower courts.
Issues: The issues included the delay in filing the substitution application, the validity of the orders declaring surplus land, and the scope of judicial review under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay condonation application should be rejected if the delay was occasioned without a valid reason. It also emphasized that the scope of judicial review under Article 226/227 is limited and should only be exercised in appropriate cases.
Final Decision: The delay condonation application for substitution of legal heirs was rejected, and the writ petition was dismissed as abated and on merits.
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
In re:
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application no.319462 of 2010 Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.319464 of 2010 This is an application for substitution of legal heirs of respondents 4 to 13 along with delay condonation application.
2. Heard Mrs. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for applicants and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
3. It is stated that respondents 4 and 13 died issueless in the years 1989 and 1990 respectively; respondent 5 died in 1990, respondent 6 died in 2000, respondent 7 died in 1998, respondent 8 died in 1995, respondent 9 died in 2001, respondent 10 died in 2002, respondent 11 died in 1994 and respondent 12 died in 1992 but a composite substitution application alongwith delay condonation application has been filed on 29.10.2010.
4. Interestingly, all contesting respondents have died and in order to bring legal heirs of all the said respondents 4 to 13, a composite substitution application has been filed in October, 2010. In the context of respondent 4, application is beyond time about 21 years; in respect of respondents 5, it has been filed after twenty years; in respect of respondent 12, application is delayed by 18 years; in respect of respondent 11, delay is of 16 years; for respondent 7 delay is about 12 years; in respect of respondent 8, delay is 15 years; in respect of respondent 6, delay is of 10 years; in respect of respondent 9, delay is of 9 years; and for respondent 10 delay is of 8 years. Therefore, total tenure of delay in filing substitution application runs from 8 to 21 years. The only explanation given in affidavit supporting delay condonation application is that petitioner is an illiterate person and had no knowledge. It is not the case that deponent was not aware of time of death of respondent 4 to 13 and did not have advantage of legal opinion of counsel. Admittedly he was already represented through counsel in the present appeal.
5. This Court has to consider above explanation whether constitute "sufficient cause", which can be treated to be sufficient cause to justify condonation of delay ranging from 8 to 21 years in respect of different respondents died in different period as stated above.
6. It may also be noticed at this stage that after expiry of period of limitation in filing substitution application and thereafter application for setting aside abatement, writ petition in the context of concerned respondents had abated years ago and this period is running from 8 to 21 years.
7. It is true that discretion to condone delay is to be exercised in a meaningful manner, which may subserve ends of justice, which is the very purpose of existence of institution of justice. But, this discretion cannot be made a mockery in favour of a litigant, who has shown scant regard to provisions of limitation and/or even to show reasonable vigilant effort in persuasion of his cause.
8. In N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 Court said :
"Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. "
9. Court clearly said, when there is reasonable ground to think that delay was occasioned by the party without any valid reason at all then the Court should lean against acceptance of explanation.
10. In Vedabai alis Vaijayanatabai Baburao Pateil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil & Ors., (2001) 9 SCC 106, Court said that :
"A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days."
11. It is well settled that if delay is found thoroughly negligent in prosecuting the cause then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay.
12. Recently in Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC 157, Court said :
"....the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would
