BHAGIRATH Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgments as has been given by the respondents No. 2 and 3 dated 23.3.1994, 30.8.1993 and 29.5.1976. In a proceeding under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), notice appears to have been issued in the name of the petitioner on 9.5.1976 and as no objection was filed on behalf of the petitioner, the Prescribed Authority, appears to have disposed of the matter by its judgment dated 29.5.1976 by which an area of 2.30 acres of land in terms of unirrigated was declared surplus. It appears that on behalf of the petitioner, a restoration application was filed on 4.4.1984 for setting aside the order dated 29.5.1976 on the ground that he was in jail in connection with conviction for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and therefore, he could not come to know about the proceedings in question. The said restoration application was dismissed in default on 27.4.1984. Thereafter, another application was filed by the petitioner on the ground the learned counsel who was instructed in the matter and who moved the application, did not attend the case and therefore, for no fault of the petitioner application was dismissed. According to the petitioner that application was not disposed of and the file was consigned. After making enquiry in respect to the progress of the matter, when no trace could be made in respect to his restoration application, on 14.6.1991, another application was filed by the petitioner by detailing the aforesaid facts and it was prayed that he may be given opportunity to have his say on merits. It is this application which has been rejected by the respondent No. 3 by order dated 30.8.1993 and the appeal filed against the order also come to be dismissed and it is these impugned orders which have been challenged in this writ petition. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents No. 2 and 3 have not applied their minds to the reasons and the explanation as has been given by the petitioner and in a most cursory manner, by making casual observation in respect to the explanation as was offered by the petitioner, his application has been rejected. It has been further submitted that alleged service on the petitioner's wife is also not correct and in any view of the matter that service cannot be treated for the petitioner and the notice was required to be served on him and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the orders as has been passed by the Courts below rejecting the restoration application of the petitioner is liable to be set aside.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the respondents in response to the submissions as made by learned counsel for the petitioner, there was deemed service of the notice on the petitioner and even thereafter, there is inordinate delay in moving the application and therefore, the courts below have rightly rejected the petitioner's application.

(3.) ON the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the petitioner could not receive information in respect to the proceedings in question and the courts below on wholly incorrect premises rejected his applications.