Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35928 of 2002 Petitioner :- Ravindra Rai & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Shankar Shukla,Uma Shankar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.315528 of 2017.
Civil Misc. Recall/Restoration Application No.315532 of 2017.
The cause shown for non-appearance of learned counsel for the petitioners has been sufficiently explained. The explanation for delay in filing the restoration application is sufficient.
The Delay Condonation Application No.315528 of 2017 as well as the Restoration Application No.315532 of 2017 are allowed.
The writ petition is restored to its original number.
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.314953 of 2017.
Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.314955 of 2017.
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.348831 of 2017.
Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.348833 of 2017.
Civil Misc. Amendment Application No.401600 of 2017.
In Civil Misc. Substitution application No.348833 of 2017.
Cause shown for delay in filing the substitution applications has been sufficiently explained.
The substitution application filed for substitution of petitioner Nos.1 and 3 has not been objected by the learned Standing Counsel.
The Delay Condonation Application Nos.314953 of 2017 and 348831 of 2017 and the Substitution Application Nos.314955 of 2017 and 348833 of 2017 are allowed.
The Amendment Application No.401600 of 2017 filed in the Substitution Application No.348833 of 2017 is allowed.
Let the necessary incorporation be made within 48 hours.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 Jyotsana
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35928 of 2002 Petitioner :- Ravindra Rai & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Shankar Shukla,Uma Shankar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Supplementary affidavit dated 13.2.2018 filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present petition is directed against the order dated 27.3.2001 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Azamgarh in a proceeding initiated under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Landholdings Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act, 1960').
The said order is appealable under Section 13 of the Act, 1960.
It is stated in the writ petition that the order dated 27.3.2001 is an ex-parte order and as such, the petitioner has filed a restoration application before the Prescribed Authority along with the stay vacation application. But no interim order had been granted to the petitioners and, as such, they were constrained to approach this Court. Upon presentation of the writ petition, this Court has granted interim order dated 28.8.2002 to the effect that the dispossession of the petitioners from the land in question shall remain stayed and till the matter is decided by the Prescribed Authority, no allotment shall take place.
On a pointed query made by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioners informs that the restoration application filed before the Prescribed Authority for recall of the order dated 27.3.2001 is still pending consideration. In the supplementary affidavit filed today, the order sheet of the Prescribed Authority has been filed. A perusal thereof indicates that the matter has been adjourned on various dates on account of the strike observed by the lawyers of the District Court and on rest of the occasion, the petitioners have succeeded in getting the matter adjourned.
It is noteworthy that there was no interim order of this Court staying further proceedings before the Prescribed Authority in the restoration matter.
It appears that the petitioners have succeeded in getting the matter adjourned for a period of more than 15 years on the pretext of pendency of the present petition in order to enjoy the fruits of the interim order granted by this Court.
Keeping in view of the said fact, the writ petition is being disposed of with the direction to the Prescribed Authority to proceed with the pending restoration application namely Case No.524 (State v. Daryao Rai) on merits expeditiously and make an endeavour to decide the same, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that the matter shall be proceeded without any unnecessary adjournment to the petitioners and in case of any adjournment, it would be open for the Prescribed Authority to impose appropriate cost.
Further, it is made clear that the protection granted by this Court vide order dated 28.8.2002 shall continue only for a period of two months i.e. till 31.5.2018 and, thereafter, it shall automatically stand vacated. In case, the restoration application remains pending beyond the aforesaid date for whatever may be the reason, it would be open for the Prescribed Authority to proceed in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 Jyotsana