Genda v. Board of Revenue, U.P

writ petition was ordered to be served upon the learned Counsel appearing for the YEIDA during the course of 48 hours next. On 07.05.2025, Mr. Ridham Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Mr. V.K. Singh, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the YEIDA. He was granted a week’s time to file a counter affidavit, and the matter directed to be posted today at 10:00 a.m.

2. When the case is called on, no one appears on behalf of the YEIDA. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State till date.

5. Admit. Heard forthwith. Heard Ms. Aditi Kesarwani, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Udai Chandani, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ray, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. No one appears on behalf of the respondent No. 3.

6. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad dated 18.08.2006, rejecting the petitioner’s restoration application, seeking readmission of Second Appeal No. 62/96-97, Genda v. L.M.C. and others, to its original file and number. Writ - B No. 63165 of 2006 Page -3- of 6

7. The petitioner claims to be a member of the Scheduled Caste and a native of Village Dugli, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. The petitioner’s case is that he has been in possession of Gata No. 73/0-200, Gata No. 143/0-363 and Gata No. 328/0-417, all situate in Village Dugli, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sikandrabad, Bulandshahr, prior to the year 1980. The petitioner instituted a suit under Section 229B read with Section 122B(4-F) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, being Original Suit No. 62 of 1994, arraying the Gaon Sabha and the State as parties, with a case that the petitioner be declared a bhumidhar with transferable rights of the aforesaid land, of which, he has been in continuous possession. The suit was tried by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sikandrabad and decreed vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.1995. The petitioner was declared a bhumidhar with transferable rights by the said decree.

8. The Gaon Sabha appealed the decree to the Court of the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. The Additional Commissioner (Judicial), to whom Appeal No. 18/1995-96, Gram Sabha v. Genda, was assigned, allowed the appeal vide his judgment and decree dated

25.06.1997 and set aside the Sub-Divisional Officer’s decree, dismissing, the petitioner’s suit.

9. Aggrieved by the decree of the Additional Commissioner, the petitioner carried a second appeal to the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad, where the appeal was numbered as 62/1996-97/Bulandshahr. The appeal appears to have been still at the stage of admission, when it came up before the Board on 06.07.2000. On the said day, the petitioner could not appear, and the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner was represented by learned Counsel and the fact was not within the petitioner’s knowledge until 18.10.2003, when he was apprised of it by the Halka Lekhpal. Thereupon, the petitioner came to Allahabad and Writ - B No. 63165 of 2006 Page -4- of 6 contacted Ms. Seema Shukla, Advocate. He could not know all facts about the correct state of the record. The petitioner says that he was constantly in touch with his Counsel at Bulandshahr, who always told him that the date of hearing the appeal was approaching. Since the petitioner did not get a satisfactory answer from the learned Counsel earlier appearing for him, he contacted Mr. Shailendra Kishore, Advocate, High Court, Allahabad, who went to the Board of Revenue on 20.10.2003 and ascertained facts about the status of the appeal. It then came to his knowledge that the appeal had been dismissed for non-prosecution on

06.07.2000.

10. Immediately upon coming to know of the said fact, the petitioner got an application for setting aside the order dismissing the appeal in default and readmission to its original file and number, presented along with a delay condonation application, explaining the reasons for the delay in the affidavit filed. The facts set out hereinabove relating to the circumstances of the default and the delay have been noticed by this Court from the petitioner’s explanation about both these matters in the application made before the Board. The Board, vide the order impugned dated 18.06.2006, has rejected the petitioner’s restoration application, in terms of the following order : Heard Ld. counsel for the applicant appears. The restoration has been put up after more than 3 years. No. plausible execuse Hence not allowed Disposed off accordingly. File be consigned. Sd/Illegible Anil Kumar Member (True Copy) 18.8.06 Writ - B No. 63165 of 2006 Page -5- of 6

11. Not to say much about the genuineness of the explanation furnished by the petitioner for the cause of default and the delay in applying for a restoration, for the obvious reason that this matter, as we propose, would have to go back to the Board, but it must be remarked that it is a true state of affairs of litigation in this State that all litigation before the High Court or higher Courts of the State, located at Allahabad or Lucknow, is controlled by learned members of the Bar appearing in the causes before the Courts in the districts or the tehsil. There is an innate kind of trust and authority that these counsel enjoy with their clients, who are litigants before the High Court or the Courts at the State Headquarters. The members of the Bar in the District Courts, sometimes deliberately, and sometimes on account of their inherent non-understanding of procedures in the High Court and the Courts at the State Headquarters, pass on incorrect information to their clients, which is accepted as gospel.

12. We do not intend to blame the learned members of the Bar in the District Courts, but must say that ultimately, it is the litigant himself, who must know his interest, whether educated or not so educated. If a case is pending in a higher Court, to seek information or guidance about it from a lawyer practising in a Mufassil Court, is a perilous course of action for any litigant, which he must never indulge in. Nevertheless, if someone does, the consequences should not always be fatal to his cause. The realities have to be understood, as they obtain in this State.

13. Coming back to the order impugned, a reading of the order shows that it is a typical example of a cryptic and laconic order, which ought never be passed in a matter that finally determines rights of parties. The order carries no reasons for the conclusions reached. The fact that the restoration application was filed with a delay of more than three years is ipso facto no ground to reject it. The Board had to examine the cause for the delay, and then, for valid reasons recorded, opine whether sufficient Writ - B No. 63165 of 2006 Page -6- of 6 cause to condone the delay was made out. If the cause was made out, he would then have to consider the restoration application on parameters well known to the law. Nothing of this kind has been done, and a telegraphic order passed, rejecting the restoration application. An order of this kind cannot be countenanced.

14. In the circumstances, this writ petition succeeds and stands allowed. The impugned order dated 18.06.2006 passed by the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad is hereby quashed. The delay condonation application along with the restoration application made in Second Appeal No. 62/1996-97/Bulandshahr, Genda v. Land Management Committee and others, shall stand restored to the file of the Board of Revenue. The delay condonation application, together with the restoration application, shall be heard and determined in accordance with law, within one month, after notice to all parties concerned. The State shall pay the petitioner costs, which we quantify at 2,000 ℕ’ .

15. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the Registrar, Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad and the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrates of Allahabad and Meerut, and the Pradhan, Land Management Committee, Village Dugli, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sikandrabad, Gautam Buddh Nagar and the Chief Executive Officer, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Buddh Nagar, both through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar. Allahabad May 20, 2025 (J.J. MUNIR) I. Batabyal JUDGE Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable : No Writ - B No. 63165 of 2006 ISHAN BATABYAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

writ petition was ordered to be served upon the learned Counsel appearing for the YEIDA during the course of 48 hours next. On 07.05.2025, Mr. Ridham Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Mr. V.K. Singh, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the YEIDA. He was granted a week’s time to file a counter affidavit, and the matter directed to be posted today at 10:00 a.m.

2. When the case is called on, no one appears on behalf of the YEIDA. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State till date.

5. Admit. Heard forthwith. Heard Ms. Aditi Kesarwani, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Udai Chandani, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ray, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. No one appears on behalf of the respondent No. 3.

6. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad dated 18.08.2006, rejecting the petitioner’s restoration application, seeking readmission of Second Appeal No. 62/96-97, Genda v. L.M.C. and others, to its original file and number. Writ - B No. 63165 of 2006 Page -3- of 6

7. The petitioner claims to be a member of the Scheduled Caste and a native of Village Dugli, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. The petitioner’s case is that he has been in possession of Gata No. 73/0-200, Gata No. 143/0-363 and Gata No. 328/0-417, all situate in Village Dugli, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sikandrabad, Bulandshahr, prior to the year 1980. The petitioner instituted a suit under Section 229B read with Section 122B(4-F) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, being Original Suit No. 62 of 1994, arraying the Gaon Sabha and the State as parties, with a case that the petitioner be declared a bhumidhar with transferable rights of the aforesaid land, of which, he has been in continuous possession. The suit was tried by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sikandrabad and decreed vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.1995. The petitioner was declared a bhumidhar with transferable rights by the said decree.

8. The Gaon Sabha appealed the decree to the Court of the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. The Additional Commissioner (Judicial), to whom Appeal No. 18/1995-96, Gram Sabha v. Genda, was assigned, allowed the appeal vide his judgment and decree dated

25.06.1997 and set aside the Sub-Divisional Officer’s decree, dismissing, the petitioner’s suit.

9. Aggrieved by the decree of the Additional Commissioner, the petitioner carried a second appeal to the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad, where the appeal was numbered as 62/1996-97/Bulandshahr. The appeal appears to have been still at the stage of admission, when it came up before the Board on 06.07.2000. On the said day, the petitioner could not appear, and the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner was represented by learned Counsel and the fact was not within the petitioner’s knowledge until 18.10.2003, when he was apprised of it by the Halka Lekhpal. Thereupon, the petitioner came to Allahabad and Writ - B No. 63165 of 2006 Page -4- of 6 contacted Ms. Seema Shukla, Advocate. He could not know all facts about the correct state of the record. The petitioner says that he was constantly in touch with his Counsel at Bulandshahr, who always told him that the date of hearing the appeal was approaching. Since the petitioner did not get a satisfactory answer from the learned Counsel earlier appearing for him, he contacted Mr. Shailendra Kishore, Advocate, High Court, Allahabad, who went to the Board of Revenue on 20.10.2003 and ascertained facts about the status of the appeal. It then came to his knowledge that the appeal had been dismissed for non-prosecution on

06.07.2000.

10. Immediately upon coming to know of the said fact, the petitioner got an application for setting aside the order dismissing the appeal in default and readmission to its original file and number, presented along with a delay condonation application, explaining the reasons for the delay in the affidavit filed. The facts set out hereinabove relating to the circumstances of the default and the delay have been noticed by this Court from the petitioner’s explanation about both these matters in the application made before the Board. The Board, vide the order impugned dated 18.06.2006, has rejected the petitioner’s restoration application, in terms of the following order : Heard Ld. counsel for the applicant appears. The restoration has been put up after more than 3 years. No. plausible execuse Hence not allowed Disposed off accordingly. File be consigned. Sd/Illegible Anil Kumar Member (True Copy) 18.8.06 Writ - B No. 63165 of 2006 Page -5- of 6

11. Not to say much about the genuineness of the explanation furnished by the petitioner for the cause of default and the delay in applying for a restoration, for the obvious reason that this matter, as we propose, would have to go back to the Board, but it must be remarked that it is a true state of affairs of litigation in this State that all litigation before the High Court or higher Courts of the State, located at Allahabad or Lucknow, is controlled by learned members of the Bar appearing in the causes before the Courts in the districts or the tehsil. There is an innate kind of trust and authority that these counsel enjoy with their clients, who are litigants before the High Court or the Courts at the State Headquarters. The members of the Bar in the District Courts, sometimes deliberately, and sometimes on account of their inherent non-understanding of procedures in the High Court and the Courts at the State Headquarters, pass on incorrect information to their clients, which is accepted as gospel.

12. We do not intend to blame the learned members of the Bar in the District Courts, but must say that ultimately, it is the litigant himself, who must know his interest, whether educated or not so educated. If a case is pending in a higher Court, to seek information or guidance about it from a lawyer practising in a Mufassil Court, is a perilous course of action for any litigant, which he must never indulge in. Nevertheless, if someone does, the consequences should not always be fatal to his cause. The realities have to be understood, as they obtain in this State.

13. Coming back to the order impugned, a reading of the order shows that it is a typical example of a cryptic and laconic order, which ought never be passed in a matter that finally determines rights of parties. The order carries no reasons for the conclusions reached. The fact that the restoration application was filed with a delay of more than three years is ipso facto no ground to reject it. The Board had to examine the cause for the delay, and then, for valid reasons recorded, opine whether sufficient Writ - B No. 63165 of 2006 Page -6- of 6 cause to condone the delay was made out. If the cause was made out, he would then have to consider the restoration application on parameters well known to the law. Nothing of this kind has been done, and a telegraphic order passed, rejecting the restoration application. An order of this kind cannot be countenanced.

14. In the circumstances, this writ petition succeeds and stands allowed. The impugned order dated 18.06.2006 passed by the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad is hereby quashed. The delay condonation application along with the restoration application made in Second Appeal No. 62/1996-97/Bulandshahr, Genda v. Land Management Committee and others, shall stand restored to the file of the Board of Revenue. The delay condonation application, together with the restoration application, shall be heard and determined in accordance with law, within one month, after notice to all parties concerned. The State shall pay the petitioner costs, which we quantify at 2,000 ℕ’ .

15. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the Registrar, Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad and the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrates of Allahabad and Meerut, and the Pradhan, Land Management Committee, Village Dugli, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sikandrabad, Gautam Buddh Nagar and the Chief Executive Officer, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Buddh Nagar, both through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar. Allahabad May 20, 2025 (J.J. MUNIR) I. Batabyal JUDGE Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable : No Writ - B No. 63165 of 2006 ISHAN BATABYAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad