Inordinate delay in filing a recall application without adequate justification can lead to dismissal of the petition, emphasizing the importance of timely legal action.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH KUMAR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Gram Sabha and Sri Hemand Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned judgment/ order dated 08.01.2024 passed by Respondent No. 4 in Revision No. 1202/2023 (Rajit Ram vs. State of U.P. & Others) under Section 333 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act, 1950’) and impugned order dated 22.05.2023 passed by Respondent No. 6 rejecting the application for recall dated 9.6.2022 in Case No. 161/215/54/210 filed under Section 229 (B) of the Act, 1950 and with a further prayer to direct the respondent not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner on Gata No. 233 of area 0.316 hectares which is in possession of the petitioner for about 20 years, situated at Village Kondari, Pargana Haveli and Tehsil-Sadar, District Faizabad/Ayodhya, and further to direct the Respondent No. 4 to rehear/reconsider the Revision No. 1202/2023 on merits and also direct the Respondent No. 6 to decide the suit for declaration under Section 229-B of the Act, 1950 after restoring the same to its original number by allowing the application for recall dated 09/06/2022 after condoning the delay, on merits expeditiously.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has continuously been in possession of Gata No. 233 area 0.316 hectare for last 20 years which is entered as Naveen Parti Land of Gram Sabha in the revenue records. In pursuance of Section 122-B (4F) of the Act, 1950, the petitioner being a schedule caste having occupied it from or before May, 13, 2007 i.e. prior to 5th May, 2007 would be Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami but when the Gaon Sabha was interfering in possession of the petitioner, the petitioner filed a suit under Section 229-B of the Act, 1950.

4. It is further submitted that in the suit the objections were preferred by the Gram Sabha and thereafter the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 18.06.2013. Against the order dated 18.06.2013 the petitioner had preferred a recall application on 9.6.2022 mentioning that due to the illness the petitioner had filed the application with delay but the same was rejected on the ground of delay by the order 22.5.2025 and have not accepted the delay as explained by the petitioner without assigning the reasons. Against the order dated 22.05.2023 the petitioner had preferred a revision, which has also been dismissed by impugned order dated 8.1.2022 upholding the order dated 22.05.2023.

5. It is further submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Section 122-B (4F) of the Act, 1950 as he has continuously been in possession of the land in dispute since prior to 5th May, 2007, whereas, the cut off date under the statute i.e. 13.05.2007.

6. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a agriculture labour as the father of the petitioner is land owner but the petitioner is living separately and he falls under the definitions of agriculture labour as define in Section 198(1) of the Act, 1950 and the land of the father cannot be taken into consideration as far as the rights of the petitioner are concerned and in support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 7.2.2017 passed in the case of Om Prakash and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

7. It is further submitted that the petitioner has continuously been harvesting crops / agricultural activities on the said land and simultaneously he has argued that he planted the trees on the said land.

8. On the other hand learned counsel for the Gram Sabha and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel have submitted that the recall application was preferred by the petitioner with the delay of 9 years without moving any application for condonation of delay even in the recall application just 1/2 lin