The court emphasized that delay in filing a restoration application undermines the right to challenge prior orders, reinforcing the principle that the law of limitation must be strictly applied.

JUDGMENT :

(Dinesh Pathak, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents No. 1 to 4, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent No. 5 and perused the record on board.

2. Instant writ petition has arisen from the restoration application. Grievance of the petitioner is that restoration application dated 14.7.2017 filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 29.9.1984 passed by the Consolidation Officer has illegally been rejected by all the three consolidation courts.

3. Record reveals that the Consolidation Officer has passed order dated 29.9.1984 under Section 9A(2) of UPCH Act with respect to Khata No. 75 whereby objection filed on behalf of Matru alias Prem Chand has been allowed granting him co-tenancy and, accordingly, share of the parties has been decided. All the three consolidation courts have given categorical finding that neither the grand father of the respondent-applicant nor his father had filed any recall application or objection claiming their exclusive right and title over the property in question. It has been observed as well that Prabhu, grand father of the petitioner, had two sons namely Basanta and Jai Prakash. Basanta had died and is succeed by Jagat Singh, Samay Singh and Raj Singh. However, Samay Singh and Raj Singh as well as Jai Prakash have not made any endeavour to challenge the order dated 29.9.1984. Only one of the heir namely Jagat Singh (petitioner herein) has filed a restoration application at a highly belated stage on 14.7.2017 against the order dated 29.9.1984. Thus, predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner have allowed the order dated 29.9.1984 to stand and they have not shown their grievance against the said order. In the meantime, land in question had been acquired by the Noida Authority in the year 2014-2015. It appears that owing to said acquisition, dishonesty prevailed in the mind of the petitioner, who has filed restoration application on 14.7.2017. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered the application dated 30.9.1989 as well, whereby father and uncle of the petitioner have averred before the Land Acquisition Officer that they have no another land except the land situated in village Rampur Jagir. At the highly belated stage, the restoration application moved on behalf of the present petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court, who has deliberately filed the restoration application just to harass the parties and keep them involved in protracted litigation. This Court has also noted with utmost surprise as to how any party can keep mum and show his ignorance with respect to the order, which is adverse to his interest. Even otherwise, once the predecessors in the interest of the petitioner have not chosen to challenge the order dated 29.9.1984 then, being successor, petitioner has no locus to re-open the dispute with respect to the property in question. Even otherwise, there is gross negligence and deliberate inaction at the part of the petitioner in assailing the order dated 29.9.1984. Restoration application moved by him is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court which is sham, illusory and inspired by nefarious and vexatious designs and is liable to be dismissed at the very threshold.

4. In the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Srivedi & Others reported in AIR 2022 SC 332, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expounded that deliberate delay at the part of the applicant is not liable to be condoned. Relevant paragraphs no. 7 to 7.5 are quoted herein below:-

"7. At this stage, a few decisions of this Court on delay in filing the appeal are referred to and considered as under:-

7.1 In the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal (supra), it is observed and held as under:-

In construing s. 5 it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour o