MUKHTYAR CHAND Vs. GANGADHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this matter, the argument had started, in the pre-lunch session, it was to be continued thereafter in the post-lunch session. When the matter revived to be taken up in the post-lunch session for further argument on merits, the arguing Counsel is not present, rather a mention has been made on his behalf on the pretext that he has left for Dehradun. Its too discourteous conduct of the Counsel that he has not presented himself, particularly when the matter is continued to be argued in continuation thereto in the post lunch session, in such an eventuality, apart from recording my anguish, as to the manner in which the Counsel has conducted himself in the case, I have got no other option except to proceed to pass a judgement on merits of the matter.

(2.) The petitioner, in the present writ petition, has given challenge to the impugned order dtd. 5/12/2016, as passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 84 of 2014-15, Gangadhar v. and others; whereby in a revision which was preferred under Sec. 219 of the Land Revenue Act, the Chairman, Board of Revenue had allowed the Delay Condonation Application, as preferred by the respondent in the revision, which he has filed, being aggrieved against the order of the Tehsildar dtd. 27/9/2004, as rendered in Case No. 30/141 of 2003-2004, under Sec. 34 of the Land Revenue Act.

(3.) As per the finding, which has been recorded by the Chairman, Board of Revenue while allowing the delay condonation application, he has recorded a finding that admittedly the land in question which was the subject-matter of the proceedings under Sec. 34 of the Land Revenue Act, in fact, it was a land which was leased out to late Mr. Hansraj, who after his death was succeeded by three sons and out of them one of them was respondent No. 1.