An application for extension of time in a decided petition is maintainable if the reasons are properly explained and the bona fide of the authorities seeking extension is shown.

JUDGMENT :

(Application for Extension of Time - IA/2/2023)

1. Heard Shri Onkar Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Shri Praful Kumar Yadav, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Shri Hemant Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Dhirendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State/Applicant.

2. The deponent/State by way of instituting an application dated 21.11.2023 sought prayer for extension of time, as provided in the judgment and order dated 27.09.2022.

3. While filing writ petition Matters Under Article 227 No.3726 of 2022 (Shatrughan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Others) the petitioner, namely, Shatrughan Yadav sought prayer for issuance of a direction to respondent/ opposite party nos.2 and 3 to conclude the survey bandobast, initiated under Section 49 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Code, 2006"), in respect to village-Majha Rath and Majha Durgaganj, Tehsil- Tarabganj, District-Gonda within stipulated period of time as fixed by this Court. The petitioner further submitted that the matter of survey bandobast is pending since 2020 and the gazette notification was also annexed alongwith the writ petition.

4. Considering the above said prayer, the coordinate bench of this Court passed the order on 27.09.2022, which is reproduced hereinunder:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents No. 2 and 3 to conclude the survey bandobast under Section 49 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in respect of Village-Majha Rath and Majha Durgaganj, Tehsil Tarabaganj, Ditrict Gonda.

Learned standing counsel submits that he has no objection in case an expedite order is passed.

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to to conclude the survey bandobast under Section 49 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in respect of Village-Majha Rath and Majha Durgaganj, Tehsil Tarabaganj, Ditrict Gonda preferably within a period of six months from the date an authenticated copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned.

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of."

5. This Court while disposing of the writ petition (Matters Under Article 227) No.3726 of 2022 directed to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 to conclude the survey bandobast under Section 49 of the Code, 2006 with respective villages, within period of six months, from the date an authenticated copy of the order is placed before the authority concerned and it was further observed that the Court did not examine the case of the either parties, on merits and it was open to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law.

6. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a representation on 12.07.2023 and the said representation was disposed of vide order dated 28.07.2023, while informing to the petitioner that the survey bandobast proceeding is going on and this will take some more time, ultimately the survey proceeding could not be completed within time prescribed by this Court and therefore, the petitioner moved contempt petition bearing no.2492 (Civil) of 2023, which is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Contempt Court.

7. The contention of counsel for the State/applicant is that the petitioner is a resident of village-Durgaganj and the dispute is regarding time bound survey, as per Record Maintenance Rule, 1978, by the survey team headed by Assistant Record Officer, Ayodhya and Gonda. He submits tha