Disposed

Rishipal and 18 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2020WRIC/13834/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerns the setting aside of an order dismissing an application for condonation of delay. The High Court, finding that petitioners had no notice of proceedings for land record corrections, treated the delay as explained and remanded the matter for merits determination. The main petition was disposed of expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 05.03.2020 set aside; delay treated as explained; matter remanded to court below for decision on merits within four months.

Rishipal and 18 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13834 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Rishipal And 18 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Singh Yadav,Rohit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

At present, the petitioners application for seeking condonation of delay in filing revision no.300 of 2020 (Sukhlal & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others) has been dismissed vide order dated 05.03.2020.

¶7

Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the only reason assigned by learned court below is that the day to day explanation of the long delay of seven years and eleven months has not been given. Further, it has been observed that there is no credible evidence in support of the explanation.

¶8

Perusal of the application and affidavit in support of the delay condonation application filed in the aforesaid revision reveals that it was the petitioners' case that they were not given any notice of the proceedings under Section 33/39 of Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 wherein the order dated 09.01.2009 came to be passed making certain corrections in the land records. It is further stated by the petitioners that they were not given any intimation of that order at any time and that they learnt about the same only on 16.12.2019 whereupon they obtained a copy of the khatauni wherein reference of the order dated 09.01.2009 came to be first disclosed to them.

¶9

In view of such facts, it becomes noteworthy that neither there is a denial that the petitioners had no notice of the proceedings giving rise to the order impugned in the revision (that is order dated 09.01.2009) nor there is any denial to their claim that the order dated 09.01.2009 was never served on them. Keeping in mind the nature of the proceedings and the order pertaining to correction of land records, it has to be accepted that the petitioners had no knowledge of the same as they were never made party to the proceedings for correction and in any case

¶10

they are not shown to have been issued any notice in those proceedings and the order passed is not shown to have been served on them.

¶11

In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for any counter affidavit at this stage.

¶12

For reasons noted above, the impugned order dated 05.03.2020 is set aside. The delay may be treated to have been duly explained. The learned court below will now apply its mind and decide the matter on merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from today.

¶13

With the above observations, the present petition is disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 16.9.2020 S.Chaurasia

Rishipal and 18 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishipal and 18 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hameed Alias Gurjar Vs State of U.P.

Waseem @ Naseem @ Kallo Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Naim Vs State of U.P.

Natthu Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs Chandrakali and 6 Others

Sanjay Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others