Madan Mohan Gupta Objection Filed U.P.Z.A v. The Addl.Commissioner Lucknow Division Lko.And 6

: Anoop Srivastava Ii, Anoop Srivastava : C.S.C. Court No. - 3 HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Heard Sri Anoop Srivastava-II, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Tomar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the following prayer :- "a. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quash the order dated

27.5.2005 passed by the opposite party no.1 (contained as Annexure No.1), order dated 9.5.2005 and order dated 7.5.1994, passed by the opposite party no.2, contained as Annexure Nos.6 and 4 respectively to this writ petition. b... c..."

Brief facts of the case are that the name of the petitioner was recorded since the time of settlement first, second and third and lastly during consolidation proceeding, the name of the petitioner was recorded in C.H. Form-45 in respect of the disputed land. The respondent Nos.3 to 7 filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 against the petitioner.

Thereafter, on 30.6.1993, the petitioner appointed a Mukhtar-e-aam and he filed an application for restoration of order dated 25.9.1992. The application dated 30.6.1993 was dismissed by the respondent No.2 in default. Thereafter, on 21.4.2004, the petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 4 C.P.C, which has been dismissed by the respondent No.2 on the ground of delay, vide order dated 9.5.2005. 2 WRIC No. 1004136 of 2005

The petitioner filed a revision before the respondent No.1 against the order dated 9.5.2005, which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.5.2005 on the same ground.

A suit under Section 229-B was filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 7, in which the petitioner filed his objection which has been dismissed in default due to non pairvi of Mukhtar-e-aam. The petitioner moved an application for recall of the order after ten years, which has been rejected on the ground of delay vide order dated 9.5.2005 by the respondent No.2, against which, the petitioner preferred revision before the Additional Commissioner Lucknow, Division Lucknow, which has also been rejected on 27.5.2005, accepting the order of the respondent No.2.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the restoration application could not have been rejected on technical grounds. He further submitted that the restoration application filed by the petitioner would have been entertained sympathetically and the order would have been recalled. Next submission is that the revisional authority (respondent No.1) has also committed manifest error of law in dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner.

In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment rendered in the case of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Vs. Ujagar Singh and others [2010 (28) LCD 1531]. Relevant paragraph-15 is being quoted below :- "15. In our opinion, ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned orders and matter is remitted to the Executing Court to consider and dispose of appellant's objections filed under Order 21 Rule 90 of CPC on merits and in accordance with law, at an early date. It is pertinent to point out that unless malafides are writ large on the conduct of the party, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technalities. "

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there was a delay of ten years, therefore, the respondent No.2 has rightly rejected the objection and recall application filed by the petitioner and the revisional authority has also not committed any error in passing the impugned order. 3 WRIC No. 1004136 of 2005

After having heard the rival submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record as well as the law report cited by the petitioner's counsel.

The respondent Nos.3 to 7 were issued notices and nobody has appeared on their behalf.

While rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner, there was delay in filing the restoration application for recall of the order. Reason has been assigned in regard to the delay occasioned in filing the application for recall of the order, dismissing the objection, therefore, the application would not have been dismissed on technical ground of delay unless malafides are writ large on the conduct of the party, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technalities.

In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 27.5.2005 passed by the opposite party no.1 (Annexure No.1), order dated 9.5.2005 and order dated

7.5.1994, passed by the opposite party no.2, contained as Annexure Nos.6 and 4 respectively are hereby set aside. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

In the opinion of the Court, ends of justice would be met by remitting the matter to the respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the petitioner's objections filed under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 on merits and in accordance with law, at an early date.

No order as to costs. August 26, 2025 Gautam (Irshad Ali,J.) GAUTAM TECKCHANDANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench