DHARAM SINGH Vs. GAON SABHA VILLAGE TUGALPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned orders dated 26.11.2008, 29.06.2009 and 08.01.2010 (contained as annexure nos. 4,7 and 10).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated that proceedings under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, were initiated against the petitioner by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Laksar, District- Haridwar on the basis of the report dated 11.10.2007 (annexure no.2) submitted by the Lekhpal of village Tugalpur, Pargana Gordhanpur. On receipt of notice, the petitioner filed his objections (annexure no.3). In the proceedings, statement of concerned Lekhpal was recorded. The case was listed for hearing. The petitioner was contesting the said case, but he could not note the dates on account of strike in the Tehsil and ultimately the Tehsildar, Laksar vide order dated 26.11.2008 decided the case ex-parte against the petitioner. It is asserted in the petition that when it came to the notice of petitioner that proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act has been decided vide order dated 26.11.2008, he immediately filed an application for setting-aside the ex-parte order, to which the respondent filed objection stating therein that the recall application is time barred and no delay 2 condonation application has been filed. The Tehsildar- Laksar vide order dated 29.06.2009 rejected the recall/restoration application filed by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2009 the petitioner preferred a revision before the Collector, Haridwar, who also dismissed the revision vide order dated 08.01.2010. Aggrieved by these order, this petition has been filed.

(3.) THOUGH, it is true that no delay condonation application was moved by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing recall/restoration application, but from a bare reading of the recall/ restoration application it reveals that cause of delay has been mentioned in the said application and the application is duly supported with an affidavit filed in support thereto. The petitioner has also made prayer for recall of the ex-parte order dated 26.11.2008, so that the case may be decided contested. I am of the view that it was the mistake committed by the counsel for the petitioner by non-filing a delay condonation application alongwith the recall/restoration application, therefore in the interest of justice, I think that the client should not be punished for the mistake committed by his/her counsel. I am also of the view that, in case, one opportunity is afforded to the petitioner for the sake to safeguard his rights, the very purpose would be served. In the interest of justice, this Court thinks it just and proper to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner.