Dismissed

Ram Surat v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and Others

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2024WRIB/903/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition filed over 35 years after the impugned order, holding that the explanation for delay provided by the petitioner, namely lack of knowledge and financial constraints, was vague and did not inspire confidence, precluding the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed for delay and laches; the writ jurisdiction exercised under Article 226 is deemed not appropriate.

Ram Surat vs Deputy Director of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:61111

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 903 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Surat

¶5

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Gonda And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Angad Prasad Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 3-Gram Sabha.

¶8

Under challenge is the order dated 12.03.1987 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda (now Balrampur) on a reference at the behest of Sri Bhabhuti.

¶9

The petitioner has assailed the said order after about more than 35 years and the only explanation which has been given in the writ petition is in paragraph 5 and 6 which is reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:-

¶10

"5. That there is delay in filing the writ petition because the petitioner was having no knowledge about the proceeding behind him plead by private respondent getting knowledge in the month of June, 2024 the writ petition is being filed and as such, the delay may kindly be condoned.

¶11

6. That the petitioners are poor farmer. After arrangement of sufficient amount the petitioners came to Lucknow and engaged his counsel and after preparation of the petition the said being filed without any further delay."

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid explanation which apparently is absolutely bereft of any reason is most vague and does not inspire the confidence.

¶13

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not deem appropriate to entertain the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and for the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed for delay and laches.

¶14

Order Date :- 5.9.2024 Asheesh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Surat v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Surat v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravi Bhan Shukla and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. D.M., District Sultanpur and 2 Others

Virendra Kumar Vs Naib Tehsildar Dariyabad Tehsil Ram Sanehighat Dist. Barabanki and 2 Others

Ram Pragat Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector Ayodhya and 4 Others

Smt. Sushila vs Tehsildar, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, Sultanpur and Another

Rameshwar Singh vs Learned Addl. Commissioner Administration, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Rishendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others