The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging land title orders due to excessive delay. The petitioner, failing to file earlier, was denied relief on the grounds of laches and collected time related to the original dispute resolution.
Writ petition dismissed on the ground of laches due to 15-year delay in approaching the court.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:128177
Court No. - 50
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2207 of 2024
Petitioner :- Mohammad Ayyub And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deepak Gaur
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents and Sri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of the Respondent No. 8, the Gaon Sabha concerned.
The writ petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 229B/209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and is directed against the order dated 27.07.2009 and 11.07.1996 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 70 of 1994-95 (Yashin & another Vs. Gaon Sabha and others) whereby and whereunder the Review Application as also the Second Appeal has been rejected and consequently the orders dated 07.03.1995 passed by the Additional Commissioner-I, Jhansi Mandal, Jhansi passed in Appeal No. 164 of 1985-86 under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as also the order dated 31.05.1986 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Lalitpur in Suit No. 55 of 1983-84/7/85-86 decreeing the Suit under Section 229-B/209 of the U.P.Z.A. & l.R. Act, 1950 against the father of the petitioners has been upheld.
The dispute relates to Plot No. 682/1, area 1 Acre, situate in Village Khajuriya, Pargana, Tehsil and District Lalitpur. The plot aforesaid was recorded in the name of the father of the petitioners in Category 9. A suit being Suit No. 55/83-84/85-86 under Section 229-B/209 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 was instituted by the private Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 against the father of the petitioners with the allegation that they were the recorded Bhumidhars of the aforesaid gata and the name of the father of the petitioners was fraudulently recorded over the said gata which requires to be deleted and the illegal occupant evicted from the said gata. The Suit after contest by the father of the petitioners came to be decreed by the order dated 31.05.1986 recording findings of fact that the entry in favour of the father of the petitioners was fraudulent, after appreciation of the materials on record.
Against the order dated 31.05.1986, the father of the petitioners is stated to have preferred an Appeal being Appeal No. 374 of 198586 before the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi. The aforesaid Appeal was decided ex-parte in favour of the father of the petitioners and against the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 vide order dated 29.10.1989. The order dated 29.10.1989 has been brought on record as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. It appears that the said order which was ex-parte was sought to be recalled by the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 which appears to have been allowed (though no such orders has been brought on record but the said fact stands established from the fact that the Appeal stood renumbered as Appeal No. 374/37/164 of 1985-86). The Appeal came to be dismissed on merits vide order dated 07.03.1995.
The father of the petitioners thereafter preferred a Second Appeal being Second Appeal No. 70 of 1994-95 before the Board of Review which was dismissed vide order dated 11.07.1996 recording categorical finding of fact that the adverse possession of the father of the petitioners could not be established and no rights can be said to have matured in his favour under Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The Review Application preferred by the father of the petitioners was also dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 29.11.1989 had allowed the Appeal of the father of the petitioners. There was no occasion to have passed another order dated 07.03.1995 dismissing the Appeal. The Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were required to assail the order dated 29.11.1989 in Second Appeal which admittedly was not done and as such the subsequent order dated 07.03.1995 passed by the Additional Commissioner and the orders dated 11.07.1996 and 27.07.2009 passed by the Board of Revenue are also vitiated and deserve to be set aside and the Suit under Section 229-B/209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the records. I am not impressed by the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The order dated 29.11.1989 passed by the Additional Commissioner on the Appeal of the father of the petitioners was admittedly ex-parte. The order appears to have been recalled and thereafter fresh orders passed on 07.03.1995. The Court takes note of the fact that the father of the petitioners during life time did not prefer the writ petition and the petitioners are now attempting to unsettle the settled things after nearly 15 years of the rejection of the Review Application. The
Court is not impressed by the cause shown for the delay and laches. The writ petition is barred by laches and is, accordingly, dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 22.7.2024 pks
Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the revenue orders regarding land title is maintainable after 15 years of inactivity.
Whether the petitioners have shown sufficient cause to waive the bar of laches.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohammad Ayyub And 4 Others
State Of Up And 7 Others
Ashutosh Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
