Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17700 of 2021 Petitioner :- Shakil Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 13 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kalp Nath Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Kalp Nath Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri B.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.
Notice need not to be issued to the respondent nos. 5 to 14 at this stage.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3 remanding the matter to the respondent no. 2 for taking decision in the matter afresh after hearing all the parties concerned.
Stamp Reporter has reported a delay of 625 days in filing the present writ petition and in paragraph no. 17 of the writ petition the said delay has been explained wherein it has been stated that due to Covid-19 pandemic there was delay in filing the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was decreed ex-parte vide order dated 20.10.2016. Against the said order, a revision was preferred before the respondent no. 3 by the private respondents. The revisional court after recording finding that the notice of the said suit was served only on three of the private respondents and not all the respondents, set-aside the order passed by the respondent no. 2 and remanded the matter for taking decision afresh after hearing all the parties in dispute on 31.07.2019.
Sri Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, has further contended that the revisional authority was not justified in remanding the matter as the decision has been taken after issuing notices to the parties concerned and it was decided on merits.
Learned Standing Counsel while opposing the writ petition, submitted that the order of the revisional authority is justified looking to the facts of the case as notices were not served upon the revisionist and no finding was recorded by the respondent no. 2 while decreeing the suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, I find that this writ petition is not maintainable on two grounds, firstly the petitioner has approached this Court at a very belated stage and there is delay of 625 days reported by Stamp Reporter. The explanation averred in paragraph no. 17 of the petition relies upon Covid-19 pandemic. The judgment under challenge is dated 31.07.2019. At that point of time, Covid-19 pandemic has not struck the shores of Indian territory and it was for the first time on 22.03.2020 lock-down was imposed in the country. Thus, the reasons assigned in writ petition cannot be accepted by this Court.
Secondly, this writ petition has been preferred against the remand order and after perusal of the order dated 20.10.2016 and 31.07.2019, I find that the respondent no. 2 had not recorded any finding to the effect that the notice was served upon the revisionist and an ex-parte order was passed. The revisional authority had rightly after recording the finding that notice was not served, set-aside the order and remanded the matter to be decided afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
As it is not in dispute that both the petitioner as well as private respondents are jointly recorded over the land in dispute, the proceedings cannot be held in an ex-parte manner and the revisional authority had rightly remanded the matter to be decided afresh after hearing all the parties. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out.
Writ petition is devoid of merit and dismissed, accordingly.
However, looking to the facts of the case, as the matter is floating between the parties since the year 2004 to 2019, it is expected that respondent no. 2 shall conclude the proceedings in question after remand by the revisional authority, in accordance with law, within next four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court, if there are no legal impediment and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties in dispute.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 Shekhar