Court No. - 42
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22725 of 2021 Petitioner :- Sheshmani Respondent :- Commissioner And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Preeti Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Singh Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and Sri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.1.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Case No. 53 of 2021 and order dated 26.7.2021 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Case No. 315 of 2021.
By the order dated 17.1.2019 the application filed by the petitioner dated 13.1.2017 under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was rejected on the ground of delay that the lease granted in favour of late Samodha Devi is dated 15.3.1999, whereas the application for cancellation of such patta was filed on 13.1.2017 i.e. after about 17 years and 9 months without filing any application for condonation of delay holding that any such application under Section 128 (1) (1)-A of the Act may be filed within five years by the aggrieved person, therefore, the application was rejected. Revision filed against the same under Section 210 of the Act was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 26.7.2021.
Pursuant to the order dated 16.9.2021, whereby the petitioner was directed to file supplementary affidavit annexing application filed before the respondent no. 2 upon which first impugned order dated 17.1.2019 has been passed, has been filed today by means of supplementary affidavit.
Before the courts below it was asserted that the petitioner was not aware of any such patta granted in favour of Samodha Devi and the so called patta of the year 1999 was a forged document and that procedure under Sections 173 to 177 was not followed. Submission, therefore, was that the petitioner came to know about such patta dated 15.3.1999 only in the year 2016 when Samodha Devi had come on the spot asking the petitioner to remove the possession. Revisional court found that Samodha Devi had died on 18.2.2009 and the application is highly time barred.
Challenging the same, submission is that the impugned orders are wholly perverse in nature and there was no delay in challenging the orders from the date of the knowledge i.e. December, 2016 and since the patta is a forged and fabricated document and petitioner is still in possession, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned orders.
I have considered the submissions and have perused the record.
On perusal of record I find that the application 128 of the Act was filed by the petitioner on 13.1.2017, wherein it has been specifically stated that the defendant Samodha Devi had come on the spot in December, 2016 for removing possession from the property in dispute. This fact is nowhere in dispute that Samodha Devi had died on 18.2.2009 and therefore, there was no question of her coming to the spot in the year 2016. A substitution application in the application dated 13.1.2017 appears to have been filed in the year 2018. That apart, in view of this background it is very much clear that the application was not based on correct facts as rightly held by by the authorities concerned, which was filed after about 17 years and 9 months by a person, who claims that he is an aggrieved person. The limitation of five years, therefore, applies as provided under Section 128 of the Act.
In such view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the orders impugned herein. Present petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2021 Lalit Shukla