Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P. through Department of Urban Land Ceiling and Others
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:115871-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 178 of 2024 Applicant :- Dr Jyotirmaya Singh And Another Opposite Party :- Subhash Chandra Counsel for Applicant :- Umesh Chandra Kesarwani Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Umesh Chandra Kesarwani, learned counsel for the applicants. 3. On the strength of averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application and the supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the applicants would contend that there is a delay of only five years in seeking review of the order 19.8.2015 passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 18642 of 2010 (Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P. through Department of Urban Land Ceiling and Others). 4. On query made, referring to contents of paragraph-5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application and paragraph-3 and 4 of the supplementary affidavit, it has been strenuously urged that the applicant got knowledge of the order dated 19.8.2015 on 19.3.2019. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is, immediately upon getting knowledge of the order dated 19.8.2015, the applicants had filed objections/restoration application in Case No. 54401 of 2017 whereby the name of the original petitioner, Subhash Chandra had been recorded in the revenue records. Those objections were not decided. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file two writ petitions being Writ-C No. 24097 of 2019 and 24099 of 2019 seeking direction upon all the State-authorities to deal with the objections/restoration sought by the applicants. For ready reference, the order dated 25.7.2019 reads as below :
Legal Reasoning
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to decide Case No. 54402 of 2016-17 pending before respondent no.1 expeditiously." It is stated that a restoration application filed by the petitioner for recall of an order of mutation in favour of the opposite party is pending consideration since the year 2017. Under the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 1/Tehsildar (Judicial)/N.T.N. Karchchana to decide the restoration application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him." 6. In such circumstances, it has been further submitted, since the revenue authorities orally refused to decide the objections/restoration applications filed by the applicants for reason of the order dated 19.8.2015 passed by this Court, the applicants had first filed C.M. Recall Application No. 03 of 2023 which was rejected by order dated 15.3.2024. Immediately thereafter, the present review application has been filed. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the applicants, there is no unexplained delay. For ready reference, the operative portion of the order dated 19.8.2015 is quoted below : "In such view of the matter, the petitioner is, thus, entitled to benefit of Repeal Act and in the facts and circumstances,
Decision
the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and stands allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents not to interfere in the actual physical possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute and they are further directed to restore the entry of the name of the tenure holders in the revenue records. There shall be no order as to costs." 7. Also, the order dated 15.3.2024 passed on C.M. Recall Application No. 03 of 2023 reads as below : "Order on Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 3 of 2023 1. Sri Umesh Chandra Kesarwani, has appeared for the respondents. 2. Present application has been filed seeking recall of order dated 19.08.2015. 3. Perusal of the order reveals that the same is an order passed on merits. 4. Recall application is misconceived. 5. It is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail remedies in accordance with law." 8. He has relied on Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam v. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh (Dead) through Legal Representative and others, (2019) 14 SCC 449, Hetal Chirag Patel and others v. State of Gujarat and others, (2018) 7 SCC 703, Salim D. Agboatwala v. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar, AIR 2021 SC 5212 and Raheem Shah and another v. Govind Singh and others, 2023 INSC 651. 9. The issue of delay apart, we find the applicants had purchased the land in dispute from one Mamta Sharma, who had purchased the land from one Dev Kali, who in turn had purchased the same from one Savita. The said Savita had purchased the land from Shiv Prasad-the father of the original petitioner, Subhash Chandra. Plain perusal of the order dated 19.8.2015 clearly reveals that in that petition, no claim of title had been set up by the said original petitioner against the present applicants. The only declaration sought was against the State. In that regard, the original petitioner claimed that the proceeding of Urban Ceiling had lapsed upon enforcement of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Repeal Act'). 10. It is in that light vis a vis the title claimed by the State Government, declaration came to be made that the State had failed to take actual physical possession of the land declared surplus under Section 8(3) of the Repeal Act. Therefore, the land in issue never vested in the State. 11. To that declaration made by the Court, the petitioner has no dispute. He does not doubt the correctness of that declaration made. Whatever other disputes may have existed or may have arisen or may survive between the petitioner and the original land owner or his descendant, was neither involved nor adjudicated in that proceeding, nor any declaration was made affecting those rights. 12. In view of the above, the ground of fraud as has been pressed, does not exist. It may always remain open to the applicants to claim their right qua the original petitioner in accordance with law. As to decision of the pending objections, those would remain to be decided on their own merits. 12. Leaving those courses open, the review application stands dismissed. Order Date :- 22.7.2024 SA (Donadi Ramesh, J.) (S.D. Singh, J.)