SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri A.K. Srivastava holding brief of Sri Manish Kumar Srivastava, for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Sub -Divisional Officer dated 22.11.2013 rejecting the application of the petitioner for recalling the order dated 28.3.2009 passed in the proceeding under section 143 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 15.9.2014 dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order.

(2.) PLOT No. 401, area 0.509 hectare was the holding of the petitioner and his five brothers. One of the brothers, namely, Ram Gopal, filed an application for declaring the area 0.084 hectare of plot No. 401 as land for non -agricultural use under section 143 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. On the aforesaid application a report was submitted by the subordinate authorities on 28.3.2009 in which it has been mentioned that at the time of inspection the land was not in agricultural use and construction upto 3' height was raised over it. The Sub -Divisional Officer relying upon the report of Naib Tehsildar declared the land as non -agricultural land by order dated 28.3.2009. The petitioner filed an application dated 25.8.2011 for recalling of the order dated 28.3.2009 along an application for condonation of delay. However, neither in the recall application nor in the delay condonation application any affidavit has been filed. The Sub -Divisional Officer by order dated 22.11.2013 found that the delay condonation application has not been supported by any affidavit. In the application it has been stated that the applicant came to knowledge through his Counsel but when the Counsel came to the knowledge had not been mentioned in it. Accordingly, delay of 2 years and 5 months was not sufficiently explained. He rejected the delay condonation application and consequently the recall application was also rejected. The petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order, which has been dismissed by the order dated 15.9.2014. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner.