The judgment established that the issuance and extension of Patta, as well as the fulfillment of conditions for land ownership, are crucial in determining the rights of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Brief facts of present case, as culled out from writ petition, are that, Chairman, Land Management Committee issued an Asami Patta of certain land in Village Rakhukhore, Post Kampierganj, Tappa Panchwara, Pargana Haweli, District Gorakhpur in favour of father of petitioner on 30.06.1971 on yearly rent. Accordingly his name was recorded in relevant Khatauni also. There is no averment in writ petition, whether above referred Patta was extended year by year or it was cancelled and whether after death of petitioner’s father (date of death is not mentioned), he continued in possession being Pattedar.

2. After a period of more than about 37 years the present petitioner filed an application under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1953”) with prayer that he may be declared as Bhumidhar with transferable right of land in question in terms of provisions of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1950”).

3. Consolidation Officer, Kampierganj, District Gorakhpur vide order dated 11.04.2016 in Case No. 415 (Feku vs. State of U.P.) rejected claim of petitioner and dismissed above referred application. Relevant part of said order is mentioned hereafter:

4. Petitioner being aggrieved by above referred order, preferred appeal under Section 11-A of Act, 1953 before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Gorakhpur, however, the same was dismissed by order dated 28.03.2017 and relevant part of order is reproduced as under:

5. Petitioner being aggrieved by above referred two orders, filed revision under Section 48(3) of Act, 1953 before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur. Petitioner’s revision was also dismissed by order dated 24.07.2018 and relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter:

6. Above referred orders dated 11.04.2016, 28.03.2017 and 24.07.2018 are impugned in present writ petition.

7. Sri Krishna Nand Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that delay in filing present writ petition which is about more than four years may be condoned since petitioner is a poor person and he was in financial scarcity due to adverse effect of Covid-19 Pandemic. He referred contents of Paras 17 and 18 of writ petition in this regard, which are reproduced as under:

“17. That it is important to point here that, the petitioner is very poor person and has no source of income except the land in dispute, therefore due to shortage of money as well as pandemic Covid-19 the instant Writ Petition could not be filed within time. The petitioner has not committed delay in filing the instant Writ Petition willingly and deliberately, thus if there is any delay in filing the instant Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court, the same may be condoned in the interest of justice, otherwise the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury.

18. That it is also relevant to point out here that after harvesting of Ravi crops, the petitioner has manage fees and expenditures for filing instant Writ Petition, hereafter on 11.4.2022 has come to Allahabad High Court and engaged to Rajnish Shukla, Advocate, High Court for filing the instant Writ Petition, therefore instant Writ Petition was prepared and is being filed before this Hon’ble Court.”

8. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that petitioner is an agricultural labour belongs to scheduled caste and after death of his father he continued in possession as Pattedar on land in dispute in view of Section 122-B (4-F) of Act, 1950 and since petitioner occupied land before 13th May, 2007, therefore, he shall be admitted as Bhumidhar with non-transferable right and in terms of Section 9-A(2) of Act, 1953 he may be declared as Bhumidhar with transferable right on land in question, however, authorities concerned have not considered the above referred provisions of law and erroneously rejected claim of petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner has