Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2393

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DINESH PATHAK, J.
Ramjas - Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation And Others - Respondents
Writ B. No. 2882 Of 2024
Decided On : 26-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dharmendra Kumar Mishra, Vishal Singh.

The law of limitation must be strictly applied, and delay in filing petitions cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, especially in cases of negligence.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act - Section 48 - Limitation Act - Section 5 - Writ petition filed 29 years after the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation - Delay not condoned due to lack of satisfactory explanation - The petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. (Paras 3, 4, 5)

(B) Delay in filing petitions - The law of limitation is founded on public policy and should be applied rigorously - Courts have no power to condone delay on equitable grounds if negligence or mala fides are present. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a 1995 order regarding land ownership, claiming rights based on possession prior to vesting, but filed the writ petition nearly three decades later without adequate justification for the delay.

Findings of Court:
The court found no justifiable ground to entertain the writ petition due to the significant delay and lack of sufficient cause.

Issues: The main issues were whether the delay in filing the writ petition could be condoned and the adequacy of the explanation provided by the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and that delay cannot be condoned without a satisfactory explanation, especially when negligence is evident.

Result: Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT :

(Dinesh Pathak, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the records.

2. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition at a very belated stage on 22.07.2024 assailing the order dated 16.08.1995 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no.1) in Revision No.304 under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

3. Facts culled out from the record are that in basic consolidation record, land in question i.e. Plot No.830/1Sa was recorded in the name of Gram Sabha. One Murali has filed an objection against the Gram Sabha under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act claiming his right, title and interest over Plot No.830/1 Sa measuring area 4 Biswa 11 Dhoor, on the basis of possession since before the date of vesting (U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950). Having considered the merits of the case, Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 10.04.1975, has allowed the objection filed on behalf of Murali. Having been aggrieved with the order dated 10.04.1975, Ramjas (petitioner herein) has preferred revision at a very belated stage in the year 1995. Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide order dated 16.08.1995, has dismissed the revision. After lapse of 29 years, present petitioner has awaken and filed the present writ petition at a belated stage assailing the order dated 16.08.1995. No satisfactory reason has been assigned for such an inordinate delay in filing the instant writ petition. In paragraph No.12 of the writ petition, petitioner has explained the delay. For ready reference, Paragraph No.12 of the writ petition is quoted herein below :-

"12. That the petitioner is poor person and received the order dated 16.8.1995 on 15.6.2004 and thereafter concern the some local counsel for filing the Civil Misc. Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court. Paper, and expenses has been paid to the local counsel namely Sri R.S Dubey, Advocate, District Court, Basti, due to mistake of the R.S Dubey, he could not file the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court within time. The petitioner is an illiterate person and have no knowledge of the limitation and total liability of the local counsel & misuse the means and did not file the Civil Misc. Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court, when petitioner is inspected before the this Hon'ble Court and found to be no writ petition pending before this Hon'ble Court, hence he prayed before the local counsel to return the paper, then local counsel Mr. R.S Dubey returned the paper in the month of June 2024, thereafter, arranged the money and made his Counsel Mr. D.K.Mishra and Vishal Singh Advocates High Court, Allahabad to immediate file a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court without any delay, if any delay in filing the present Civil Misc. Writ Petition, be condoned.

4. It is evident that there is a deliberate inordinate delay at the part of the present petitioner. No sufficient explanation has been offered by the petitioner for such an inordinate delay. The conduct of the petitioner is, prima facie, appears to be mala fide. Considering the several decisions, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi & Ors., AIR 2022 SC 332, has expounded that, in normal course, delay cannot be condoned unless sufficient reason is assigned. For ready reference, Paragraph Nos.7.1 to 7.5 are quoted herein below :-

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 of the decree-holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties. In other words, when the period of limitation prescribed has expired the decree-holder has obtained a benefit under the law of limitation to treat the decree as beyond challenge, and this le