Dismissed¶¶12

Abdul Kayyoom and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, District-Gonda Now Balrampur and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2024/240/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Laches; inordinate delay of approximately 35 years in filing writ petition; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India — no limitation but unexplained laches bars entertainment; consolidation proceedings — Deputy Director of Consolidation, Balrampur, Reference No.66; Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Appeal No.1030/590/443; Printers Mysore Ltd. v. M.A. Rasheed (2004) 4 SCC 460; Northern India Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh AIR 2003 SC 234; writ petition dismissed solely on ground of laches; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; 2024:AHC-LKO:18807.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners' explanation for the approximately 35-year delay was not cogent, and the writ petition was dismissed solely on the ground of being barred by laches. ¶¶12

Abdul Kayyoom and Another Vs Deputy Director of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:18807

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 240 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Abdul Kayyoom And Another Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, DistrictGonda Now Balrampur And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Angad Prasad Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.4.

¶7

Under challenge is the order dated 25.03.2087 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Balrampur in Reference No.66 by means of which the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 31.08.1985 in Appeal No.1030/590/443 was allowed.

¶8

A specific query has been put to the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding how the petitioners have explained the latches. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Paragraph 7. For the sake of convenience, Paragraph 7 is being reproduced hereinafter:-

¶9

"7. That there is delay in challenging the order dated 25.03.1987 and 31.08.1985 passed by the opposite party no.1 and 2 because the petitioner was having no knowledge and about all proceedings, he could get know only in the month of January as opposite party No.3 tried to disposes the petitioner. Thereafter he managed the papers anyhow but some necessary papers regarding entry of his name is missing by the Baijnath Prasad son of Jugal Kishor but when the searching the petitioner room of the Baijnath Prasad then he getting some documents relating to the above said property and as such, office of revenue as well as consolidation and as such, a detail enquiry is require against revenue authorities because there is doubt, that they have miss placed the documents of petitioner and as such, the delay in filing writ petition may kindly be condone."

¶10

Having considered the aforesaid noticing the delay in filing the petition is approximately 35 years. It is no doubt true that there is no limitation provided for filing the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. However, the concept of explanation of latches has now gained acceptance as an important aspect which may permit the Court to not accept or entertain the petition where the latches has not been adequately

¶11

explained. The Apex Court in the case of Printers Mysore Ltd. versus M.A. Rasheed and others (2004) 4 SCC 460 and Northern India Glass Industries versus Jaswant Singh and others AIR 2003 SC 234 has considered the issue of latches and applying the aforesaid to the facts of the instant case and noticing the explanation which has been recorded hereinabove.

¶12

This Court is not satisfied as there is no cogent explanation for the delay. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed solely on the ground of being barred by latches.

¶13

Order Date :- 1.3.2024 Rakesh/-

¶14

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Abdul Kayyoom and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, District-Gonda Now Balrampur and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Kayyoom and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, District-Gonda Now Balrampur and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and 9 Others

Smt. Reeta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Kesha Raji Vs Civil Judge Junior Division Court No. 12 Gonda District-Gonda and Another

Ram Lakhan Vs Ram Naresh and 2 Others

Smt. Pushpa Gupta Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Ayodhya and 7 Others

Amjad Ali Siddiqui vs U.P. Waqf Tribunal, Lucknow Thru. Its Chairman and 4 Others