Allahabad High Court
Sarju Prasad vs Consolidation Officer, Bikapur, ... on 23 May, 2022
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 20 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1419 of 2022 Petitioner :- Sarju Prasad Respondent :- Consolidation Officer, Bikapur, Faizabad And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Nath Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents, who on the basis of written instructions has submitted that the instant petition of which expeditious disposal has been sought was dismissed for want of prosecution on 10.02.1998 and thereafter, the matter came to be restored only on 25.01.2016.
It is for the other various reasons such as resolution passed by the Members of the Bar that the matter could not be decided and, therefore, the reason of such pendency of more than 20 years have been informed.
A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether he has disclosed in his petition that his objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 were dismissed in default and when it was restored.
After taking time, learned counsel for the petitioner has answered that he has brought on record the extract of the order-sheets which is at running page 21 of the paper-book which indicates that the objections were dismissed for want of prosecution. However, insofar as the order dated 25.01.2016 upon which the objections were restored, but the same has not been brought on record rather the order dated 25.01.2016 which has been placed on record at running page 32 of the petition is also incorrect copy inasmuch as the extract of the order-sheet at running page 32 indicates that the parties were present and time had been sought.
Apparently, the extract of the order-sheets which have been filed by the petitioner are incorrect. Apart from the fact that there is no indication that his objections had been dismissed for want of prosecution on 10.02.1998 and restored on 25.01.2016.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. Accordingly, he is not entitled to any indulgence and the petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.2,500/- to be deposited in the Library Fund of the Oudh Bar Association, Lucknow within a week from today. However, nevertheless looking into the facts that the objections are pending since 29 years, the Court take suo-moto cognizance to decide the objections, therefore, the respondent No.1 is directed to take note of the aforesaid facts and without granting adjournment to either of the parties expeditiously decide the same within a period of three months from the date an authenticated copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned.
Order Date :- 23.5.2022 Rakesh/-