SHAKUNTLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEAR Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and Sri Anuj Kumar for the Respondent No.4, Land Management Committee. Notice need not be issued to the Respondent No.5 in view of the order being passed herein.

(2.) THE petitioner, Smt. Shakuntala is aggrieved by the order dated 29.03.2012 wherein in proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act initiated by the Respondent No.5 (Surendra Pal), the Collector, Banda, in Case No.8 of 2011 (Surendrapal Vs. Shakuntala and others) has condoned the delay in filing the application and directed the parties to lead their evidence in the said proceedings for which he has fixed the date. Learned counsel states that feeling aggrieved against the said order the petitioner filed Revision No.139 of 2012 (Smt. Shakuntala Vs. Surendrapal) before the Commissioner, Banda, which revision has been rejected as not maintainable against an interlocutory order. According to learned counsel for the petitioner in view of provisions of Section 198(6)(b) of the Act the complaint made under Section 198(4) against the petitioner was highly time barred, therefore, the condoning of delay under the impugned order is illegal. He states that the patta was granted to the petitioner on 31.07.1994 and approved by the Sub Divisional Officer, Naraini, district Banda on 01.05.1995 whereas the complaint has been filed on 08.12.2011 which is much beyond the period of 5 years and as such the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside.

(3.) HE has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of 'Suresh Giri and others Vs. Board of Revenue', reported in 2010(109) RD 506 and relies on paragraphs 14, 15, 16 and 19 and contends that when limitation has been provided under Section 198(6) of the Act the legislature clearly intended to provide that even suo -motu action can be taken only within the period provided under the statute.