Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15147 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rama Shanker (Died) And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yadvendra Rai Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Diwakar Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Yadvendra Rai Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri Diwakar Singh, learned counsel for fourth respondent.
Petitioners are before this Court assailing the validity of order dated 15.02.2018 passed in Case no.RST/66/2012- 2013 Computer Case no.C-200802000001815 in Revision no.95/370 of 1997 (Rama Shanker vs. Gajadhar and others) whereby the restoration application of the petitioners have been rejected. Further prayer has been made to command the second respondent to decide the Revision no.95/97 (Rama Shanker vs. Gajadhar and others) in accordance with law, expeditiously.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceeding under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act 1950 has been initiated against the father of second petitioner namely Late Rama Shanker and finally the order dated 30.06.1978 has been passed cancelling the patta of the land in question and even the Revision has also been filed alongwith stay application bearing Revision no.95/370 of 1997 (Rama Shanker vs. Gajadhar and others) wherein an interim order has been passed in favour of petitioners on 02.04.1997. He further submits that meanwhile the father of the second petitioner was suffering from various disease and as such, could not ensure the proper pairavi of the case and as a result of the same, the revision was dismissed in default on 03.08.2005 and thereafter the restoration application was moved on behalf of petitioners and the same was also rejected on 12.09.2006. Even the second restoration application was also moved by second petitioner on the ground that the matter was entrusted to the Advocate but on account of ailment of his father, the communication was not proper between the Advocate and the litigant and as such, the same was dismissed and finally the father of the second petitioner was also died in the year 2008 and as such, request has been made that on account of certain lapses on the part of the Advocate, the litigant should not suffer and this has also been urged that the aforesaid revision was entertained in the year 1997 itself and interim order was accorded and still the petitioners are in possession of the property in question and as such request has been made that for substantial justice, the aforesaid restoration application is liable to be decided on merits.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that once the revision in question has been dismissed by the Authority on the ground of delay and laches and thereafter the restoration application has also been dismissed, then in such a situation, this Court should not at all intervene in the matter.
This Court has the occasion to peruse the record in question and finds substance in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as admittedly the father of second petitioner, who was doing pairavi of the case, was seriously ill and died in the year 2008. This is also an admitted situation that in the revisional proceeding interim order was accorded in the year 1997 and on the strength of the same, petitioners claim to be in possession over the property in question and in such a situation, the delay and laches on the part of petitioners was liable to be considered sympathetically by the Revisional Authority.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned cannot sustain and the same is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Revisional Court to decide the restoration application on merits expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, without according any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, except upon payment of cost, but certainly after according opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders in the matter.
With these, Writ Petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 A. Pandey