AFR
Court No.28
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4514 of 1996
Shivala Versus The Collector, Hamirpur & Others
Hon'ble Sanjay Misra, J.
Heard Sri A.R. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of
Respondents No.1 & 2.
This petition was presented in the year 1996, however, no counter
affidavit was invited and it remained pending since then. The petitioner
is aggrieved by the order dated 29.12.1992 passed by the Respondent
No.2, Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Hameerpur, as also order
dated 01.11.1995 passed by the Collector, Hameerpur, in proceedings
under Section 122B of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act.
According to Sri Dwivedi the notice 49-Ka was issued to which the
petitioner had filed his reply, however, by the impugned order dated
29.12.1992 the objection was rejected and damages of Rs.1800/- were
imposed upon the petitioner alongwith a direction for his ejectment from
the land in question being Plot No.407/1 area 0.065 and Plot No.401/2
area 0.057 situate in village Mauhar, Pargana Sumerpur, Tehsil &
District Hameerpur. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision
under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act being Revision No. Nil of
1995 before the Respondent No.1. Alongwith revision the petitioner also
filed an application for condoning the delay in filing the revision.
Learned counsel states that in the application for condoning the
delay it had been clearly stated that when the matter was heard before the
Respondent No.2 and evidence had been led by the petitioner, he was
made to understand that the proceedings by virtue of the notice 49-Ka
will be withdrawn since the matter does not relate to unauthorized
occupation of Gaon Sabha land. He states that the petitioner, therefore,
went back and for the first time he came to know on 27.01.1995 when he
was served with the notice. According to learned counsel for the
2
petitioner he applied for certified copy of the order on 06.02.1995 and
received it on 15.02.1995. The revision was filed on 16.02.1995 that is
very next day when the certified copy of the order was made available to
him and as such there was no delay in the revision from the date of
knowledge of the order passed by the Respondent No.2.
Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the record, it has been clearly mentioned in the
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that when the
proceedings were undertaken by the Respondent No.2 the petitioner had
appeared in person and had led evidence to show that he was the owner
of the property in question and had not encroached the Gaon Sabha land.
The petitioner gathered an impression that the notice 49-Ka would be
withdrawn and no further proceedings will be held. However, the
petitioner has stated that he received a notice on 27.01.1995 and applied
for the certified copy on 06.02.1995 which was given to him on
15.02.1995. He thereafter filed revision on 16.02.1995. Clearly, the
explanation given by the petitioner has not been considered by the
Revisional Court in the impugned order wherein it has only been
recorded that the petitioner has not been able to explain the delay in
filing the revision. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be
sustained and it is liable to be set aside. The reason given in the
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the
delay in filing the revision should have been considered.
The impugned order dated 01.11.1996 is accordingly set aside. The
matter is remitted back to the Respondent No.1 to reconsider the
condonation of delay application of the petitioner in accordance with law
and pass fresh orders keeping in view the explanation given by the
petitioner.
The writ petition stands allowed.
No order is passed as to costs.
Order date:- 04.08.2010
pks