High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Jagdish v. The Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Ghazipur & Others - WRIT - B No. 45163 of 2006  RD-AH 14153 (23 August 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ No. 45163 of 2006
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Stamp Reporter has reported a laches of 41 years 61 days. The order impugned in the writ petition is dated 19.3.1964. The explanation submitted by the petitioner for inordinate delay in approaching this Court is that he had no knowledge or notice about the impugned order as the same was never given effect to nor was ever recorded in the revenue records and he came to know for the first time when the said order was produced by the respondent no. 2 in proceedings initiated by him for incorporation of the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 24.10.1963 in the revenue records.
According to the pleadings as set out in the writ petition, the petitioner and respondent no. 2 are real brothers. Land in dispute was purchased by their father Mukhram, however since respondent no. 2 was eldest as such sale deed in respect of the property was executed and registered in his name. During the consolidation operation, an objection was filed by the petitioner and his other brother Sri Nath (now dead) to declare them as co-tenure holder along with respondent no.2 which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 24.10.1963. In October 2001, the petitioner moved an application under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act before Collector, Ghazipur for incorporation of the said order in C.H. Form 45 which according to him could not be incorporated earlier due to mistake. Respondent no. 2 filed an objection stating therein that the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 24.10.1963 was set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 29.3.1964. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 23.3.1964 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that it was passed ex parte without any notice or opportunity to him.
The explanation submitted by the petitioner for delay in filing the writ petition is that he could not come to know of the order for about 41 years is not at all convincing. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was living outside the village, nor he has asserted about his joint possession over the land in dispute with respondent no.2. In such circumstances it is hard to believe that the petitioner could not come to know about the order for such a long time. Even from the perusal of the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation filed as annexure 11 to the writ petition, it does not appear to be an ex parte order. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded in the order that he has heard counsel for the parties. Reference has also been made to the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner.
In absence of any proper explanation on behalf of the petitioner for approaching this Court after 41 years, the writ petition is not liable to be entertained and accordingly stands dismissed as barred by limitation.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.