Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37142 of 2004 Petitioner :- Bal Kishun And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudamaji Shandilya,Atul Kumar Upadhyaya,Chaudhary Subhash Kumar,M.P. Srivastava,Sudhir Shandilya,Vivek Shandilya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Srivastava,K.S. Tiwari,Sandeep Kumar,Vijay Singh Sengar,Vijay Singh Senger
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
This petition impugns an order pursuant to which an application for restoration and recall of what the petitioners claim to be an ex-parte order have come to be dismissed.
Although there are three petitioners who had petitioned this Court, submissions have been addressed by learned counsel for the petitioners in the backdrop of the facts pertaining to the petitioner No. 1 only. The proceedings themselves emanate from steps taken by the respondents referable to Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901. Upon the case being decided ex-parte against the petitioners, an application for restoration was moved. Insofar as the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the Court has noted that notice of these proceedings had been duly served upon the son of Jagdish namely Akhilesh Ram as well as the son of the petitioner No. 3. Insofar as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned objection was taken to the validity of the notice on the ground that notice was shown to have been effected upon his minor son. The Court below while not disputing that Nand Ram was the minor son of the petitioner No. 1 has further found that the said petitioner had complete knowledge of the passing of the order and the proceedings pending as were evident from the assertions made in his objections filed in contemporaneous proceedings. The Court referred to the objection preferred on 4 June 2003 in case No. 61 of 2001 in which the petitioners disclosed the passing of the orders in the proceedings impugned here. Attributing knowledge to the petitioners of the proceedings from 4 June 2003, the Court came to hold that the application for setting aside the ex-parte order was hopelessly delayed and merited no consideration. The view so taken does not suffer from any palpable error.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 LA/-