Dismissed¶15

Sukhlal v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2025/748/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 8), WRIT - C No. 748 of 2025, decided 27.01.2025 by Jaspreet Singh, J.; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:5032. Keywords: writ petition dismissed; Article 226 discretionary remedy; doctrine of laches; delay in filing writ; revenue records / Khatauni 1360 fasli entries; Asami (Category-3); alleged Will not proved; submerged land; summary proceedings; revisional order dated 29.10.2007; S.D.M. Malihabad order dated 27.01.2006; liberty to seek regular remedies.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to take recourse on the regular side to prove his rights. ¶15

Sukhlal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector Lko. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to take recourse on the regular side to prove his rights.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the order dated 29.10.2007 should be entertained despite the delay and laches in filing it. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The petitioner's explanation for the delay (poverty, old age, senior citizen status, financial crisis, ignorance of law) does not inspire confidence and appears to be an empty formality; there is no bona fide reason or adequate explanation for the delay and laches in filing the writ petition.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a purely discretionary remedy; although rules of limitation do not strictly apply, the doctrine of laches guides the Court in deciding whether bona fide claims can be considered.

¶12

Key takeaways

There are no supporting orders on record indicating under which order passed by the competent authority the names of the grandfather, grandmother or the petitioner were incorporated in the revenue record.ratio¶13
The alleged Will, on the basis of which the petitioner claims rights, has not been brought on record and it is not clear whether it was proved in accordance with law.ratio¶13
On the petitioner's own showing, the nature of the land claimed is submerged land and the grandfather's rights were recorded only as Asami; these averments, being in summary proceedings, do not inspire confidence.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the revisional order dated 29.10.2007 (which affirmed the S.D.M., Malihabad's order dated 27.01.2006) relating to land claimed as ancestral on the basis of Khatauni entries and a Will said to have been executed by Smt. Kalawati: dismissed. The petitioner's explanation of the delay in approaching the writ court (poverty, old age, financial crisis, ignorance of law) was found to be an empty formality, with no bona fide reason or adequate explanation of the laches. The petitioner produced no supporting orders showing how the names of the grandfather, grandmother or himself were incorporated in the revenue record; the alleged Will was neither produced nor shown to have been proved; and on his own showing the land is submerged and the grandfather's rights stood recorded only as Asami. Since these are summary proceedings, the Court refused to entertain the petition, with liberty to establish rights through regular proceedings.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5032

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 748 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Sukhlal

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Collector Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhoo Dayal,Shubham Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel.

¶8

The petitioner assails the order dated 29.10.2007 passed in a revision whereby the revision of the petitioner was dismissed affirming the order dated 27.01.2006 passed by the S.D.M Malihabad, Lucknow.

¶9

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property in question was recorded in the name of grand father of the petitioner namely Babulal. After the death of Babulal, the name of the petitioner's grand mother namely Kalawati was recorded. It is further urged that Smt. Kalawati had executed a Will in favour of the petitioner whose name came to be recorded in the Khatauni 1360 fasli year under the Category-3 as an Asami. It is urged that the land in question is an ancestral and it has incorrectly been held that its a part of land which is submerged in water and the basis upon which, the order impugned dated 27.01.2006 and 29.10.2007 has been passed is apparently erroneous and the same deserves to be set aside.

¶10

The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

¶11

At the outset, it may be noticed that in paragraph-13 of the petition, an attempt has been made by the petitioner to explain the laches. The order dated 29.10.2007 is sought to be challenged and in a casual manner, it has been stated in paragraph-13 that the petitioner is a poor and a old person also a senior citizen and due to financial crisis and not having knowledge of law, he did not file the writ petition. Apparently, the averment as made does not inspire any confidence and appears to be an empty formality. There does not appear to be any bona fide reason, nor there is any adequate explanation explaining the delay and laches in filing the petition. Needless

¶12

to say the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has purely discretionary remedy and even though with the same rules of limitation are not applicable yet the doctrine of laches has been incorporated to guide the Court to see whether bona fide claims can be considered or a party may not misuse the liberty in approaching the writ court.

¶13

Even otherwise, from a perusal of the material on record though the petitioner has tried to claim that the land is ancestral on the basis of certain entries made in the Khatauni but there is no supporting orders indicating under which order passed by the competent authority in the name of the grand father or the grand mother or the name of the petitioner was incorporated in the revenue record. The petitioner claim rules on the basis of a Will which also has not been brought on record. It is not clear whether the alleged Will was proved in accordance with law or not coupled with the fact that the nature of the land which is being claimed by the petitioner is submerged land and on the own showing of the petitioner, the rights of the grand father have been shown as Asami.

¶14

The aforesaid averments do not inspire confidence apart from the fact that these are summary proceedings. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition which is rejected, however, in case, if the petitioner feels that he has any right he may take recourse on the regular side to prove his rights.

¶15

With the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Harshita

¶17

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

Sukhlal v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhlal v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chhatthoo Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Krishan Devi Vs D.D.C.and Ors.

Shiv Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. through District Magistrate Gonda, and 8 Others

Badami Devi Vs Board of Revenue U.P. at Lko. Thru. Member and 2 Others

Santosh Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and Others

Vibha Sarin vs Estate Late Ajay Sarin and Another