RAMESHWAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Madan Mohan, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dwijendra Prasad, Counsel for respondent No. 5, Mr. L.K. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Avinash Chandra Srivastav, Counsel for respondent No. 4, Gram Panchayat.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that khasra plot No. 266 area 0.191 hectare, situated in village Chandrapur, TahsilBah, District Agra was recorded as navin parti. An agriculture lease was executed in favour of respondent No. 5, Roop Kishore Chaturvedi, S/o Chetan Das, R/O Village Chandrapur, Tehsil Bah, DistrictAgra (U.P.) and the same was approved also on 26/3/1992. Petitioner filed a complaint against the allotment of respondent No. 5, which was registered as Case No. 64 of 199596, under Sec. 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, respondent No. 5 appeared in the proceedings and filed his reply also but subsequently absented from the proceedings, hence, the case was directed to be proceeded exparte. The Additional District Magistrate/ Additional Collector, vide order dtd. 31/12/1996, cancelled the allotment of respondent No. 5. Against the order dtd. 31/12/1996, respondent No. 5 filed a restoration application along with an application under Sec. 5 of Indian Limitation Act on 19/1/2010 i.e. after about 14 years. Petitioner filed his objection to the restoration application as well as delay condonation application. Additional Collector, vide order dtd. 30/5/2015, set aside the exparte order dtd. 31/12/1996, allowed the application dtd. 19/1/2010 and restored the case on its original number for decision afresh. Petitioner challenged the order dtd. 19/1/2010 through revision before Commissioner and the same was heard and dismissed by Additional Commissioner, vide order dtd. 11/8/2022, hence this writ petition.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that restoration application filed by respondent No. 5 was highly time barred i.e. about 14 years but Additional Collector without recording proper finding on condonation of delay of 14 years, has allowed the application dtd. 19/1/2010 filed by respondent No. 5 but there is no specific order for condonation of delay of 14 years. He further submitted that order dtd. 15/12/1996 to proceed exparte has not been challenged by respondent No. 5, hence, the final order dtd. 31/12/1996 by which lease of respondent No. 5 was cancelled, cannot be recalled. He further submitted that respondent No. 5 has appeared in the proceeding under Sec. 198(4) of U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act through Counsel and filed his reply also but subsequently absented from the proceedings, as such, order dtd. 31/12/1996 was passed in accordance with law cancelling the allotment of respondent No. 5. He further submitted that land in question was not vacant for allotment and no permission under Sec. 28C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act was obtained, as such, the allotment made in favour of respondent No. 5 was illegal and irregular. He further submitted that impugned orders be set aside and writ petition be allowed.