Allahabad High Court
Sharavan Kumar vs Addl.Commissioner (Admin.),Lko. Div. ... on 3 February, 2020
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 26 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 2860 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sharavan Kumar Respondent :- Addl.Commissioner (Admin.),Lko. Div. Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Tej Singh Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri V. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1 and 2 and Sri Tej Singh for respondent No.6.
2. By means of the instant writ petition the order impugned dated 13.9.2019 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow has been challenged wherein he has rejected the application for recall of order dated 27.9.2017 preferred by the petitioner.
3. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that father of opposite party No.s 3 and 4 and husband of opposite party No.5 had mortgaged the land somewhere in 1975-76 in lieu of money with conditional sale. Due to the fact that said mortgaged money was not re-payed to the mortgagee, as per Section 164 of U.P. Z. A. & L.R. Act the mortgage was converted into sale and the petitioner has sought to be the owner of the land. In this regard he has submitted that the Civil Court has also passed a decree on 22.11.1983 in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of the decree the petitioner has moved an application for mutation in the revenue records before Tehsildar, Mishrikh, District Sitapur and on 27.6.1985 an order was passed in his favour. Subsequently father of opposite party No.s 3 and 4 and husband of opposite party No.5 filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh, District Sitapur, who subsequently reversed the order of Tehsildar and allowed the appeal. The petitioner preferred an revision before Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow which was dismissed in default on 4.3.1994. An application for recall of aforesaid order was preferred by he petitioner after a period of nearly 21 years on 2.8.2016 and the same has been dismissed by means of the impugned order dated 13.9.2019.
4. The Commissioner has recorded the fact that the said application has been moved with great delay and the reasons stated for condonation of delay were not satisfactorily explained and has, therefore, rejected the application for recall.
-2-5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the delay had occurred due to the fact that his counsel told the petitioner not to be present on each and every date of hearing and whenever he is required he would be duly informed. Due to the fact that on 25.7.2016 petitioner received some communication from respondent No.s 3 to 5 then he started to finding out about the status of his case when he was informed that the same has been dismissed in default on 4.3.1994.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is decree of the civil court in his favour and accordingly he has a very strong case and it would be in the interest of justice to allow the writ petition and set aside the order of Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow on 13.9.2013.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that delay of 21 years is a very long delay and no proper explanation of the same has been given and, therefore, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution there does not exist any reason for this Court to interfere with the order passed on 13.9.2013.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The revision was dismissed in default on 4.3.1994 and the application for setting aside the same was moved on 2.8.2016, after a delay of nearly 21 years. The only explanation given by the petitioner is that his counsel had told him not to find out on day to day basis about the progress of the case, therefore, he did not make any inquiry for 20 years. It is only when he inquired about the progress of the case then he was informed that the same has been dismissed in default.
10. The explanation of the petitioner does not seem to be a satisfactory explanation in a litigation where substantial rights of the petitioner are effected, more so, when mutation proceedings by which his name is recorded in the revenue records is the substantial issue before the revisional court, it is difficult to accept that if on the assurance of his counsel, he did not find out about the progress of his case for 20 years.
11. The doctrine of delay and latches serves a very salutary purpose. It comes to rescue of a person who is vigilant about his rights, who is granted indulgence by the Court and even after expiry of a reasonable period and shows sufficient cause the court may show a liberal view and grant relief but if a person -3- sleeps over his rights for an unnecessary long period of time and then approaches the Court then the court may be reluctant to show indulgence for condoning the delay where it shows that he had abdicated his rights.
12. The delay in the instant case is nearly 21 years which is extremely long time. The reasons given by the petitioner as recorded by Additional Commissioner in the impugned order is not satisfactory.
13. I am of the considered opinion that the reasons given by the petitioner in moving application after 21 years is not satisfactory and, therefore, no interference is required by this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
14. In view of above, no infirmity can be found in the order of Additional Commissioner (Administration). The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.2.2020 (Alok Mathur, J.) RKM.