Paras Nath v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Faizabad And Others

this regard has been elucidated by this very Bench in the case of 'Smt. Mohd. Jahan Begum & Anr. vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad & Ors.' passed on 23.09.2016 in Review Petition No.329 of 2010 Keeping in mind the aforesaid pronouncement when this Bench peruses the records, it finds that judgment review of which has been sought is dated

07.02.2019 and was passed in Writ Petition No.4438 (Consolidation) of

1982. The application seeking review along with an application for condonation of delay in filing of the same has been filed on 18.09.2025. As per the office, there is delay of 1670 days as on 18.09.2025. In the 2 CMRAD No. 161 of 2025 light of the aforesaid, I proceed to scrutinize the explanation offered for the delay and laches in the affidavit filed in this regard in support of the application for condonation of delay.

4. The affidavit, firstly, says in para 2 that the said petition bearing Writ Petition No.4438 (Consolidation) of 1982 was filed similar to the nature of public interest litigation way back in 1982 against the arbitrary and without jurisdiction order of D.D.C. The petition was not filed in public interest but by a person aggrieved. In para 3, it has been stated that writ petition was kept pending for 37 years and in the meantime, most of the petitioners as well as private respondents were either dead or had left pursuing the case. We find that that Sri G.C. Sinha, learned counsel who has filed the application for review was the counsel for the petitioners and had been heard when the petition was disposed of on 07.02.2019, a fact which he does not deny. Para 4 of the affidavit then goes on to state that the matter was taken up by the Court on 07.02.2019 in the category of old cases/ not to the adjourned and in para 5, it has been stated that misleading facts were brought before this Hon'ble Court which were against the actual facts and documents without demonstrating as to who misled the Court and how; what were the facts which were misleading. In para 6 & 7 of the affidavit, averments have been made regarding merits of the matter. These paras contain pleadings on the merits of the matter and not on the question of delay in filing the application for review. In para 8, it has been stated that the revenue authorities were confused with the order of the Court, therefore, they did not correct the entry from USAR to Rasta till 2023 but it was ultimately recorded as Rasta. This is hardly an explanation for delay of 1670 days on the part of the applicant-petitioner no.5 to seek review. None of the other petitioners assuming that they are alive have sought review. Even the State authorities have not sought review of the judgment dated 07.02.2019 referred hereinabove. Whether the authorities were confused or not cannot be ascertained by this Bench nor can it be a ground for seeking condonation of delay on behalf of the applicant in filing the application. Para 9 thereafter goes on to state that Muslim community immediately took advantage of it and rushed over the land in thousand of numbers. The district administration in the name of maintaining law and order misinterpreted the judgment of this Court and 3 CMRAD No. 161 of 2025 allowed the muslim community to bring their Tazias on the said land kept it overnight and performed Moharram over the land which in fact was Banjar land. Similar averments have been made in para 10 and 11. All this pertains to a situation which may or may not have arisen at the spot in question involving law and order problem. The order review of which has been sought very categorically mentions that use of the said land would be subject to maintenance of law and order which shall be seen by the district authorities and the order of D.D.C. would not be understood as prohibiting any other person from using the said passage as may be permissible in law except of course during the period when Tazias procession is to be taken out. Now for condonation of delay, an explanation has to be offered in that context and not on the merits of the matter. If such situation has arisen subsequent to passing of the said judgment that too on a date much later to the rendering of the judgment which in fact has not even been disclosed but presumably as informed by Sri Sinha, it has occurred after 2023 then the remedy is not by seeking review of this judgment as the judgment is very clear about maintenance of law and order by the district authorities. If there was any other cause regarding law and order, a separate proceedings could have been initiated by the concerned persons, instead, this review application has been filed. In any case, this is not very relevant for explaining the delay of 1670 days. In para 12, it is said that during Muharram, the residents of area were asked to remain inside their house. This again has nothing to do with the delay caused in seeking review. Para 13 speaks of the fact that the deponent who is seeking review is aged eighty years and he then contacted his lawyer. This is also not the explanation for the delay of 1670 days. The counsel was present on the day the petition was decided. He very categorically says that he communicated the order to his clients who were the petitioners immediately or in a day or two, therefore, merely because one of the petitioners was eighty years of age is no justification for preferring an application for review after such delay.

5. Hardly any justification has been put forth for the delay of 1670 days, which, on the face of it is inordinate and unacceptable.

6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has further observed that the courts must be mindful that strong case on merits is no ground for condonation of delay. 4 CMRAD No. 161 of 2025

7. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for accepting the explanation offered for the delay and laches in filing this application for review. Sri G.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant only reiterated what has been stated in the affidavit for explaining the delay. He also sought to address the Court on merits of the matter but in view of the the recent decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated

12.09.2025 rendered in Civil Appeal No.11794 of 2025 'Shivamma (Dead) By LRS vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors', it is not open for this Bench to consider the merits of the matter.

8. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the review application is also rejected. November 21, 2025 Shanu/- (Rajan Roy,J.) SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

this regard has been elucidated by this very Bench in the case of 'Smt. Mohd. Jahan Begum & Anr. vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad & Ors.' passed on 23.09.2016 in Review Petition No.329 of 2010 Keeping in mind the aforesaid pronouncement when this Bench peruses the records, it finds that judgment review of which has been sought is dated

07.02.2019 and was passed in Writ Petition No.4438 (Consolidation) of

1982. The application seeking review along with an application for condonation of delay in filing of the same has been filed on 18.09.2025. As per the office, there is delay of 1670 days as on 18.09.2025. In the 2 CMRAD No. 161 of 2025 light of the aforesaid, I proceed to scrutinize the explanation offered for the delay and laches in the affidavit filed in this regard in support of the application for condonation of delay.

4. The affidavit, firstly, says in para 2 that the said petition bearing Writ Petition No.4438 (Consolidation) of 1982 was filed similar to the nature of public interest litigation way back in 1982 against the arbitrary and without jurisdiction order of D.D.C. The petition was not filed in public interest but by a person aggrieved. In para 3, it has been stated that writ petition was kept pending for 37 years and in the meantime, most of the petitioners as well as private respondents were either dead or had left pursuing the case. We find that that Sri G.C. Sinha, learned counsel who has filed the application for review was the counsel for the petitioners and had been heard when the petition was disposed of on 07.02.2019, a fact which he does not deny. Para 4 of the affidavit then goes on to state that the matter was taken up by the Court on 07.02.2019 in the category of old cases/ not to the adjourned and in para 5, it has been stated that misleading facts were brought before this Hon'ble Court which were against the actual facts and documents without demonstrating as to who misled the Court and how; what were the facts which were misleading. In para 6 & 7 of the affidavit, averments have been made regarding merits of the matter. These paras contain pleadings on the merits of the matter and not on the question of delay in filing the application for review. In para 8, it has been stated that the revenue authorities were confused with the order of the Court, therefore, they did not correct the entry from USAR to Rasta till 2023 but it was ultimately recorded as Rasta. This is hardly an explanation for delay of 1670 days on the part of the applicant-petitioner no.5 to seek review. None of the other petitioners assuming that they are alive have sought review. Even the State authorities have not sought review of the judgment dated 07.02.2019 referred hereinabove. Whether the authorities were confused or not cannot be ascertained by this Bench nor can it be a ground for seeking condonation of delay on behalf of the applicant in filing the application. Para 9 thereafter goes on to state that Muslim community immediately took advantage of it and rushed over the land in thousand of numbers. The district administration in the name of maintaining law and order misinterpreted the judgment of this Court and 3 CMRAD No. 161 of 2025 allowed the muslim community to bring their Tazias on the said land kept it overnight and performed Moharram over the land which in fact was Banjar land. Similar averments have been made in para 10 and 11. All this pertains to a situation which may or may not have arisen at the spot in question involving law and order problem. The order review of which has been sought very categorically mentions that use of the said land would be subject to maintenance of law and order which shall be seen by the district authorities and the order of D.D.C. would not be understood as prohibiting any other person from using the said passage as may be permissible in law except of course during the period when Tazias procession is to be taken out. Now for condonation of delay, an explanation has to be offered in that context and not on the merits of the matter. If such situation has arisen subsequent to passing of the said judgment that too on a date much later to the rendering of the judgment which in fact has not even been disclosed but presumably as informed by Sri Sinha, it has occurred after 2023 then the remedy is not by seeking review of this judgment as the judgment is very clear about maintenance of law and order by the district authorities. If there was any other cause regarding law and order, a separate proceedings could have been initiated by the concerned persons, instead, this review application has been filed. In any case, this is not very relevant for explaining the delay of 1670 days. In para 12, it is said that during Muharram, the residents of area were asked to remain inside their house. This again has nothing to do with the delay caused in seeking review. Para 13 speaks of the fact that the deponent who is seeking review is aged eighty years and he then contacted his lawyer. This is also not the explanation for the delay of 1670 days. The counsel was present on the day the petition was decided. He very categorically says that he communicated the order to his clients who were the petitioners immediately or in a day or two, therefore, merely because one of the petitioners was eighty years of age is no justification for preferring an application for review after such delay.

5. Hardly any justification has been put forth for the delay of 1670 days, which, on the face of it is inordinate and unacceptable.

6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has further observed that the courts must be mindful that strong case on merits is no ground for condonation of delay. 4 CMRAD No. 161 of 2025

7. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for accepting the explanation offered for the delay and laches in filing this application for review. Sri G.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant only reiterated what has been stated in the affidavit for explaining the delay. He also sought to address the Court on merits of the matter but in view of the the recent decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated

12.09.2025 rendered in Civil Appeal No.11794 of 2025 'Shivamma (Dead) By LRS vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors', it is not open for this Bench to consider the merits of the matter.

8. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the review application is also rejected. November 21, 2025 Shanu/- (Rajan Roy,J.) SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench