Zafarullah Khan and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and Others

Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri. Ambrish Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri. Vinay Bhushan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.12.1981, 26.3.1982 and 11.6.1984 and 12.11.1990 as contained in Anneuxres 1 to 4 respectively, the said orders have been passed by the Consolidation Authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in respect to the land recorded as Gata Nos. 926/23, 543/20, 1718/06 as ''Matrook'' situated in village-Ranki-Badalpur, Pargana-Sadullah Nagar, Tahsil-Utraula, Balrampur.

Sri. Vinay Bhushan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised-preliminary objection and submits that the cause of action on the part of the petitioner in the present case for redressal if their greivances, if any, have arisen in respect to the land in dispute in the year 1990 when the order dated 12.11.1990 (Annexure-4) has been passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Gonda in Revision No. 72 of 1970 u/s 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

He further submitted that the petitioners have not given any satisfactory explanation in respect to delay and laches in filing the present case, hence the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the said ground.

Learned counsel for petitioner while meeting the abovesaid preliminary objection raised by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has placed reliance on paragraphs 10 and 11 of the writ petition and on the basis of the same submits that there is no delay and laches in filing the present writ petition.

After hearing learned counsel on the point in issue, from the perusal of the averment as made in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the writ petition, the position which emerged out from the averment as made in the said paragraphs that there is no satisfactory explanation in respect to delay and laches in filing the present writ petition rather from the averments as made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition and the documents filed in support of the same (Annexure-6), the position is that the same relates to the revenue documents pertaining to different fasli years. Further, from the document annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, it is clearly established that in pursuance to the orders under challenge in the present case, the Consolidation Officer in the proceedings under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules has implemented the said orders by recording the name of the concerned person in the revenue record on the basis of the same.

Thus, keeping in view the abovesaid facts, as well as the fact that in pursuance to the order dated 12.11.1990 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Gonda thereby dismissing the revision filed, by the petitioners u/s 48 of the Act, the same has been implemented by the appropriate authority/Consolidation Officer in the year 1999 (16.3.1999) so, the explanation given by the petitioner in regard to delay in filing the present writ petition challenging the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-1 to 4 to the writ petition, I am of the considered opinion that on the basis of the same, at this belated stage, the delay in filing the present writ petition cannot be condoned.

Needless to mention herein that previously Courts did show lenience and latitude in dealing with matter filed at a belated stage. Thereby considering the delay in challenging the order which are otherwise barred by limitation. It is high time a changed perspective and attitude should be adopted, since the Courts are already overburdened with cases resulting in inordinate delay in disposal of cases. Those days of condonation of dalliance and delay would now be over and in cases where no sufficient and proper reason is assigned for delay, the Court must adopt the stern attitude and refuse relief. That will also help in transmitting a message that the Court will no more be indulgent and parties beware.

In view of the abovesaid facts, as in the present case, the original cause of action had arisen on the part of the petitioner in the year 1990, so at this belated stage, the said issue comes within the ambit and scope of stale/dead issue cannot be adjudicated and decided at this belated stage and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Thus, for the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is dismissed.