1. Facts of the case.
(a) The father of the petitioner late Ilyas Khan was obsolute owner in possession of land bearing Khasra Nos.120 (0.1540 hectare), 403 (0.7020 hectares), 409 (0.9520 hectares) and 412/1 (0.0310 hectares) situated in village Haroda, Tehsil and Ditrict-Saharanpur. After the death of father, petitioner and father of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 (Late Ashfaq Ahmad) became the joint owners of the land having an undivided 1/ 2 share respectively.
(b) The petitioner filed Misc Case No.83/2013 (Musheer Ahmed Vs. Inamul Haq) on 01.4.2013 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Saharanpur for division of land under Sections 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act 1950 of the aforesaid land. On the basis of a report of the Lekhpal dated 30.9.2013, the S.D.M. prepared decree dated 24.10.2013, whereby land was divided by preparing entire Kurra No.1 and Kurra No.2.
c) Before the decree was prepared, a part of land bearing Khasra No.409, measuring 5664 was vested in the National Highway of India by way of publication of declaration under section 3-D of National Highway Act.
d) It is admitted case of the petitioner that he was unaware about the proceedings of acquisition. After acquisition, award was declared on 7.1.2016 and amount of compensation was determined to the petitioner as well as respondents no.1 to 4. However, the said respondents filed objections before Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) claiming about 80% of the share of compensation on the basis of decree and Kurra No.1 and 2 dated 24.10.2013 contending that 6 bighas of land was acquired from the subdivision of the respondent nos.1 to 4 while only one bigha of land was acquired from the land of the petitioner and prayed that apportionment of compensation be done accordingly.
e) The SLAO after hearing the parties accepted the objection vide order dated 13.9.2017, relying upon the decree and Kurra Nos.1 and 2 prepared on 24.10.2013. Consequently, petitioner was directed to refund excess amount to the respondent nos.1 to 4.
f) At that stage, the petitioner challenged the order dated 24.10.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate by way of filing a Revision No.453/2017 before Additional Commissioner Saharanpur Division on 24.10.2017, along with an application for condonation of delay, on following grounds:-
"3. यह कि दिनांक 24.10.2013 में जो कुरहे का वाद विचाराधीन था, उसमें आदेश पारित हो गया जबकि यह आदेश औचित्यहीन था। चूंकि जो कुरहे वार बटवारे का आदेश दिनांक 24.10.2013 में किया गया इससे पूर्व ही 3डी का प्रकाशन दिनांक 09.10.2013 में हो जाने के कारण भूमि में अधिग्रहण के कारण सरकार का एन0एच0-73 का हिस्सा भी हो गया इसलिए कुरहें का आदेश दिनांक 24.10.2013 अप्रभावी रहा। लेकिन चूंकि कागजात में दिनांक 24.10.2013 का एक आदेश बना हुआ है जिसका कोई औचित्य नहीं है, यह आदेश दिनांक 24.10.2013 निरस्त होने योग्य है।
4. यह कि एन0एच-73 में 5664 वर्ग मी0 भूमि चली गयी है इसलिए कुरहें का आदेश दिनांक 24.10.2013 अप्रभावी हो जाने के कारण निरस्त होने योग्य है।
5. यह कि पक्षों के मध्य दिनांक 24.10.2013 के आदेश के कारण अनावश्यक विवाद उत्तपन्न् हो गया है।
6. यह कि प्रतिवादीगण ने निगरानी कर्ता से भूमि बेचने की एवज में 25,00000/- रुपये आर0टी0जी0एस0 के माध्यम से ले रखे हैं और न तो वे पैसा लौटा रहें और न ही इसके बदले भूमि दे रहें है और बदनियती में कुरहें की आड़ लेकर के जबरन भूमि को मौके पर कम ज्यादा दिखा कर दिनांक 24.10.2013 को कुरहें के आदेश का नाजायज लाभ उठाना चाहते है जबकि कुरहा मौके पर अस्तित्व में नहीं है। क्योंकि भूमि दिनांक09.10.2013 में अधिग्रहण हो चुकी है लिहाजा उसके आधार पर आज तक न तो कोई पैमाईश हुई है और न ही कोई औचित्य है।"
The contents of the application of condonation of delay are:
"निवेदन है कि निगरानी उपरोक्त श्रीमान जी के न्यायालय में दायर की जा रही है जिसमें पूर्ण आशा सफलता की है, निगरानीकर्ता को कुरहे के सम्बन्ध में यह मालूम था कि अधिग्रहण के बाद कुरहे की पत्रावली में कोई आदेश पारित नहीं हुआ है, निगरानीकर्ता को प्रतिवादीगण ने धोखें में रखा है चूंकि निगरानीकर्ता वृद्ध है, जिससे उक्त आदेश की जानकारी नहीं हुई अब जानकारी होने पर निगरानीकर्ता द्वारा अपने अधिवक्ता से संपर्क कर उक्त आदेश के विरुद्ध निगरानी दायर कराई जा रही है, कोई देरी जानबूझकर नहीं की गयी है जो देरी है क्षमा योग्य है निगरानी में धारा 5 कानून मियाद दिया जाना न्यायहित में आवश्यक है।"
g) Meanwhile, petitioner challenged the recovery certificate dated 9.8.2018 for recovery of amount of Rs.5157510/- being paid in excess to him by way of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.35009 of 2018, wherein by a reasoned order, effect and operation of said certificate was stayed and writ petition is pending for final adjudication.
h) The Additional Commissioner by impugned order dated 8.5.2018 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner both on delay and on merit.
2. Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that:
i) The Additional Commissioner has erred in not allowing the application for condonation of delay that reasons for delay are not reasonable and satisfactory.
ii) The Additional Commissioner has erred in entering into the merits of the case after rejecting the application for condonation of delay.
iii) The learned Additional Commissioner has further erred in not considering the effect of declaration under section 3-D of the National Highway Authority Act as well as effect of Section 2 (1) (c) of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act.
iv) The learned Additional Commissioner has miserably failed to consider that once the land was acquired by Central Government on 14.10.2013 (before the order dated 24.10.2013 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate), then the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act would not apply unless specifically notified under Section 2 (c) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and wrongly rejected the revision on the ground that the acquired land was part of Khasra No.409 whereas objections were of in regard to Khasra No. 403.
3. Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4 opposed its submissions and has relied upon the paragraphs Nos.10, 11 and 12 of the counter affidavit, mentioned hereinafter:
"10. That from the perusal of the memo of revision petitioner did not take ground, proceeding under section 176 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act ought not to be initiated due to notification for acquiring the land for National Highway and it is barred by section 2 (1) (c) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act the aforesaid revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide impugned order dated 8.5.2018, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get a new plea to nullify the decree passed by the Revenue Court under section 176 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. It is well settled principle of law the decree ought not to be nullify merely the proceeding was not maintainable. It is also well settled principle of law, if the decree has been passed on the basis of consent it has also not been set aside, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed under Order 23 Rule 3A, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. That from the perusal of the records it is clear that suit under section 176 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was filed on 23.3.2013 notification under section 3A was made on 14.1.2013 and 3-D was made on 9.10.2013. Section 3-A of the Act is merely proposal and no application was pending before the Prescribed Authority, therefore, on the consent of the parties, Kurra was rightly prepared on 30.9.2013. At the time of Kurra land was not vested in National Highway Authority rather it was in possession of the tenure holder, therefore, the judgment and decree passed under section 176 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act is just and legal, which ought not to be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. That it is well settled principle of law a decree, which is not separable, therefore, the decree is binding on the parties. The partition suit was between the petitioner and respondent nos.1 to 4 regarding four plots merely one acquiring certain area of plot no.409, decree ought not to be void, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed."
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and written submissions.
i) It is undisputed that decree and Khurra Nos.1 and 2 dated 24.10.2013 were formed on the basis of undisputed report of the Lekhpal.
ii) It is also undisputed that petitioner has not taken any step to challenge the above referred decree dated 24.10.2013 till Revision No.453/2017 was filed before the Additional Commissioner on 24.10.2017 i.e. after a period of 4 years.
iii) The petitioner has not challenged the order dated 13.9.2017, whereby objections filed by the respondent nos.1 to 4 were allowed and apportionment of compensation was effected as per the decree dated 24.10.2013.
iv) The following ground was taken in the application for condonation of delay before the Court of Additional Commissioner by the petitioner (Revisionist therein) that:
"निगरानीकर्ता को कुरहे के सम्बन्ध में यह मालूम था कि अधिग्रहण के बाद कुरहे की पत्रावली में कोई आदेश पारित नहीं हुआ है, निगरानीकर्ता को प्रतिवादीगण ने धोखें में रखा है चूंकि निगरानीकर्ता वृद्ध है, जिससे उक्त आदेश की जानकारी नहीं हुई अब जानकारी होने पर निगरानीकर्ता द्वारा अपने अधिवक्ता से सम्पर्क कर उक्त आदेश के विरुद्ध निगरानी दायर कराई जा रही है,"
However, there is no such pleading/averment in the writ petition. In paragraph 14 of the writ petition it is mentioned that:
"14. That the petitioner being unaware about the position of law as also about the status of acquisition did not challenge the validity of the aforesaid order initially."
Whereas in paragraph 9 of the writ petition it is mentioned that:
"9. That the divisions of land were carved out by the Lekhpal in the presence of the parties and the subdivisions (kurre) were submitted before the SDM, Saharanpur on 30.9.2013 along with a map and an affidavit."
Therefore, the grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay about ignorance of decree and preparation of Kurra are absolutely contrary to the content of above mentioned paragraphs 9 and 14 of the writ petition. That petitioner has knowledge of decree as well as partition, carried out in his presence.
5. Normally, while dealing with the application for condonation of delay, liberal approach and not pendantic approach should be adopted but, there must be bonafide and reasonable explanation for delay, however, in the present case delay of about 4 years is sought on the basis of incorrect and contrary statements. There is no proper explanation of delay of 4 years. The petitioner has miserably failed to explain the delay of 4 years in approaching before the learned Additional Commissioner.
6. Since the Court is not satisfied with the explanation of delay, there is no need to address the issue on merit.
7. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.8.2021 SB