Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18838 of 2019 Petitioner :- Zakir Hussain And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jamwant Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
None appears for the petitioner even in the revised call.
The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act and is directed against the revisional court's order dated 08.12.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Administration, Moradabad Mandal, Moradabad.
Their petition is reported to suffer from latches of 439 days. The only explanation that inordinate to be found on paragraph- 20 of the writ petition, which reads as follows:-
"That, the order dated 08.12.2017 which was passed in the revision and certified copy of issue on 16.08.2018. Petitioner approached to challenge the order on 25.09.2018 before the Hon'ble Court and contact to his counsel for filing the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner advised and demanded some relevant papers which was not with the petitioners and the same was necessary to disclosed in the writ petition and after getting the order which was passed on 19.03.2010 by the S.D.O. Sadar Moradabad and again came to Allahabad on 10.05.2019 for preparing the case in two days case was prepared and signature of affidavit and writ petition was done on 15.05.2019 by the deponent, as such some delay caused may be condoned, otherwise petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."
In my considered opinion, the reason given for the delay does not inspire confidence. Besides the order impugned has been passed in summary proceedings for correction of papers u/s 33/39. Section 40 A of the Land Revenue Act provides that orders passed in such summary proceedings are subject to orders passed in regular title proceedings. The findings returned in these summary proceeding do not bind the courts in regular title proceedings.
Under the circumstances and since the reason given for the inordinate delay of almost 440 days in filing this petition is not found to be sufficient, and also because the writ petition arises out of summary proceedings, this Court does not find any good ground for interference.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Radhika