This single judge bench dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order dismissing a mutation revision for lack of explanation regarding a delay of approximately 16 years, as no error of law was found in the lower court's rejection of the delay condonation application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 59
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5623 of 2019 Petitioner :- Padma Dubey Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Verma,Devesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.
This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the order dated 7.12.2001, under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, passed by the Tehsildar, Sadar, Etawah in Revision No. 02213 of 2017 (Padma Dubey v. Upendra Narayan).
By the impugned order dated 7.12.2001, the mutation application dated 7.7.1998 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kanpur Division, Kanpur, on the ground that on the date fixed, the petitioner did not appear and almost more than four years have passed but neither the original will nor any evidence was filed and after the delay of 15 years 11 months and 23 days, the petitioner filed the aforesaid revision along with delay condonation application.
In the affidavit accompanying delay condonation application it has been merely stated that the petitioner is an old poor lady and she had no information about the order dated 7.12.2001. She also stated that her son was imprisoned in the year 2001 and when he came back then she inquired and got inspected the record and thereafter, the revision has been filed.
Having considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel and on perusal of the impugned order, I am of the view, that the revisional court has not committed any error of law to reject the delay condondation application and to dismiss the revision, inasmuch as the long delay of about 16 years has not been explained by the petitioner properly.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 22.2.2019 Ak/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the long unexplained delay of approximately 16 years in filing a revision justifies dismissal.
Whether the record shows that the petitioner's delay condonation application was correctly rejected by the revisional court.
Padma Dubey
State Of U P
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
