DINESH Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HON'ble B.K. Narayana, JHeard Sri Vishal Khandelwal learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3, Sri V.K. Singh appeared on behalf of respondent No. 4 and Sri K.P. Singh for respondent No. 5.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders dated 11/10/2006 and 18/3/2004 passed by the Addl. Commissioner Agra (Annexure Nos. 5 and 3) and the order dated 29/4/2000 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional Collector (City), Aligarh.

(3.) I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. The facts which are not in dispute are that the allotment of land made in favour of the petitioners for abadi construction was cancelled by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 29.4.2000 which was challenged by the petitioner in Revision No. 49 of 2000 before the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra which was transferred for disposal before the Addl. Commissioner, Agra and allowed by him by order dated 28.5.2002. Order dated 28/5/2002 was recalled and the Revision No. 49 of 2000 restored to its original number on the application of respondent No. 4 by the respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 18/3/2004 without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without affording them any opportunity of hearing. Notice was issued to the petitioners fixing 19/5/2004 for hearing of the Revision. The petitioners for the first time became aware of the order dated 18/3/2004, whereupon the petitioners moved an application for recalling.the order dated 18/3/2004. Copies of recall and delay condonation applications have been filed as Annexure Nos. 4 and 5 to the writ petition). In paragraph 2 of the delay condonation application, the petitioners have categorically stated that prior to 19/5/2004 they had no knowledge of the order dated 18/3/2004 as the said order had been passed without issuing notice to the petitioners and hence the delay in moving the recall application was liable to be condoned. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the explanation of delay in moving the recall application furnished by the petitioners, has been rejected by the respondent No. 1 by a single sentence that the same was not satisfactory. The order does not contain any reason as to why the respondent No. 1 did not find petitioners' explanation for delay in moving the recall application satisfactory. Such consideration of explanation, in my opinion is no consideration in the eyes of law and cannot be sustained.