# Keshav Prasad Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 10 ILRA 665
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-10-24
- **Case number:** Writ -B No. 2871 of 2024
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/keshav-prasad-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51081
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Challenge to an ex-parte
decree under Section 229-B U.P. ZALR Act,
via Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, alleging fraud
and forgery, with a 48-year delay - Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 9 Rule 13
- ex-parte decree, Section 151 -Inherent
power, Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section
229-B
-
Declaratory
suit
-
Delay
condonation under the Limitation Act -
Fraud allegations must be specific and
substantiated with material evidence -
fraud initiates every solemn act - fraud
cannot be considered on vague ground
and for that there must be substance - it
required satisfaction of high standard of
proof. (Para -21,22)

(B) law of limitation - 8 key points - (i)
Law of limitation is based on public policy
to end litigation after a fixed period. (ii)
Rights or remedies not exercised for a
long time must cease to exist. (iii)
Limitation
Act
provisions
should
be
construed differently (strictly or liberally).
(iv) Substantial justice may be considered,
but not to defeat the law of limitation.
(v)
Courts
may
condone
delays
if
sufficient cause is shown, but this power
is discretionary.
(vi) Similar cases getting relief does not
entitle others to the same benefit. (vii)
Merits of the case are not considered
when
condoning
delays.
(viii)
Delay
condonation
applications
are
decided
based on set parameters. (Para - 15)

Suit under Section 229-B - resulting in an exparte decree - Petitioners filed an application
under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. in 2022 (48
years later) - alleging fraud and forgery -
claiming they were impersonated as plaintiffs
and signatures were forged - trial court
dismissed application on grounds of delay
and lack of evidence of fraud - decision
upheld by Board of revenue - rejecting
explanation for delay - hence Petition.(Para
- 2 to 10)
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
HELD: - Petitioners have miserably failed to
provide reasonable explanation to condone huge
delay of about half a century of years.
Application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was
rightly dismissed by trial court and upheld by
Board of Revenue. (Para -23)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. & ors. Vs
Special Deputy Collector (LA), 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 513

## Text

10 All. Keshav Prasad Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
665
24. The writ petitions filed by the
Petitioner-Greater
Noida
Industrial
Development Authority against the award
passed
by
Industrial
Tribunal
in
Adjudication Case No.6/2000, 4/2007 as
well as in 16 misc. cases under Section 6-F
of the Act of 1947 are accordingly
dismissed.

25. In view of the dismissal of all
eighteen petitions filed by petitionerGreater Noida Industrial Development
Authority, there is no illegality in the
issuance of recovery certificate on the basis
of the proceeding initiated by the workmen
under Section 6-H(1) of the Act of 1947,
accordingly, two writ petitions filed by the
petitioners-workmen/Safai Kamgar Union
are hereby finally disposed of with the
direction to respondent no.2/Collector,
Gautam Buddha Nagar to proceed with the
matter to recover the amount in question
under recovery certificate dated 4.1.2024
for its payment to the petitioner-workmen,
as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of 3 months from today.

26. No order as to costs
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 665
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ -B No. 2871 of 2024

Keshav Prasad Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Anjali Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mohan Kumar Singh, Shailesh Kumar
Shukla

(A) Civil Law - Challenge to an ex-parte
decree under Section 229-B U.P. ZALR Act,
via Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, alleging fraud
and forgery, with a 48-year delay - Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 9 Rule 13
- ex-parte decree, Section 151 -Inherent
power, Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section
229-B
-
Declaratory
suit
-
Delay
condonation under the Limitation Act -
Fraud allegations must be specific and
substantiated with material evidence -
fraud initiates every solemn act - fraud
cannot be considered on vague ground
and for that there must be substance - it
required satisfaction of high standard of
proof. (Para -21,22)

(B) law of limitation - 8 key points - (i)
Law of limitation is based on public policy
to end litigation after a fixed period. (ii)
Rights or remedies not exercised for a
long time must cease to exist. (iii)
Limitation
Act
provisions
should
be
construed differently (strictly or liberally).
(iv) Substantial justice may be considered,
but not to defeat the law of limitation.
(v)
Courts
may
condone
delays
if
sufficient cause is shown, but this power
is discretionary.
(vi) Similar cases getting relief does not
entitle others to the same benefit. (vii)
Merits of the case are not considered
when
condoning
delays.
(viii)
Delay
condonation
applications
are
decided
based on set parameters. (Para - 15)

Suit under Section 229-B - resulting in an exparte decree - Petitioners filed an application
under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. in 2022 (48
years later) - alleging fraud and forgery -
claiming they were impersonated as plaintiffs
and signatures were forged - trial court
dismissed application on grounds of delay
and lack of evidence of fraud - decision
upheld by Board of revenue - rejecting
explanation for delay - hence Petition.(Para
- 2 to 10)
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
HELD: - Petitioners have miserably failed to
provide reasonable explanation to condone huge
delay of about half a century of years.
Application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was
rightly dismissed by trial court and upheld by
Board of Revenue. (Para -23)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. & ors. Vs
Special Deputy Collector (LA), 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 513

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Nandan,
Advocate holding brief of Ms. Anjali Singh,
learned counsel for petitioners, Sri U.K.
Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Shailesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for
respondent No. 5 and Sri Anil Kumar Singh
Baghel, learned Standing Counsel for State.

2. In the present case, in the year
1974, a suit was filed under Section 229-B of
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950, by father of the
respondent No.5 against father of the
petitioner.

3. The said suit was decreed ex-parte
by a judgment dated 01.02.1975, whereby the
contesting respondents were declared cosharer with petitioners and accordingly the
respondent No.5 got his name mutated in
Revenue Record.

4. The above proceedings remain
unnoticed by present petition for about 48
years. It is petitioners' case that when on
25.04.2022, some part of land in suit was
acquired by National Highway Authority and
respondent No.5 claimed entire compensation
in his name only and nothing was provided to
petitioners on basis of a sale-deed between
respondent No.5 and National Highway
Authority, matter was enquired.

5. At this stage, petitioners allegedly
came to know about a decree passed in the
year 1975 and, therefore, they filed an
application under Order 9 Rule 13, read with
Section 151 C.P.C. on 04.05.2022 alleging that
their signatures were forged and without
authority they were made plaintiff in the suit
by contesting respondent only to get benefit in
exclusion of petitioners by putting their
imposters. There was no reason to file a suit
against their father.

6. In above application, no separate
application for condonation of delay was filed
but in paragraph No.11, the reasons for
condonation of delay were mentioned and in
paragraph 12 of it, a prayer was made to
condone the delay. For reference, the relevant
paragraphs of application are reproduced
hereinafter :-

"1- यह नक कनर्थत मूल वाद हम सायल
समेत हमारे सगे भ्रातागण रामाशंकर नसंह, राम अवध
नसंह को श्री कृष्ण नसंह के स्र्थान पर नकसी इम्पोस्टर को
खडा करके हम लोगों का फजी हस्ताक्षर हम चारो
भाईयो का बनवाकर नदनांक 20.11.74 को योनजत
नकया गया है।
2- यह नक कनर्थत मूल वाद पत्रावली में
हम चारों भाइयों के स्र्थान पर नकसी इम्पोस्टर को खडा
करके वाद पत्र, वकालतनामा व समन आनद पर फजी
इम्पोस्टर वारा हस्ताक्षर कर व करवाकर, अदालत को
धोखा देकर वास्तनवक तथ्य को नछपाते हुए भगवान
नसंह व राजाराम नसंह, उमा शंकर नसंह कनर्थत मूल वाद
के प्रनतवादीगण श्रे०नं० 2 वारा एकपक्षीय आदेश व
नडक्री हानसल नकया गया है।
3. यह नक कनर्थत मूल वाद की तमामतर
काययवाई फजी व सानजशी तौर पर की व करायी गयी है।
4. यह नक हम सायल अर्थवा हमारे भाईयो
वारा न तो कनर्थत मूल वाद दानखल नकया गया और न
10 All. Keshav Prasad Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
667
श्री राजेश नतवारी एड० को वकील मुकरयर नकया और न
कभी उक्त कनर्थत वाद को योनजत करने व एकपक्षीय
आदेश व नडक्री हानसल करने की आवश्यकता ही पड़ी।
5. यह नक अदालत वारा कनर्थत मूल वाद
की पत्रावली पर हम चारो भाईयों के नाम पर बने
हस्ताक्षर के अवलोकन मात्र से प्रर्थमतया यह नसद्ध हो
जायेगा नक कनर्थत मूल वाद की पत्रावली पर बनाये गये
हस्ताक्षर संनदद्ध है क्योनक कनर्थत मूल वाद की पत्रावली
के वाद पत्र व वकालत नामा व समन के पुश्त पर बनाये
गये हस्ताक्षर आपस में नभन्न नभन्न नलखावत में है।
इसका स्वतूँः संज्ञान लेने का क्षेत्रानधकार अदालत हाजा
को प्राप्त है।
6. यह नक कनर्थत मूल वाद के योनजत होने
व ननणीत होने के समय रामाशंकर नसंह कोल माइन्स
धनबाद में सनवयस करते रहे और सन् 2003 में ररटायर
हुए। ररटायर होने के बाद भी वहीं पर सपररवार रहते रहे
और 2012 में वफात कर गये, इसी तरह राम अवध
नसंह पटना मेनडकल कालेज में एम०बी०बी०एस० के
छात्र र्थे तर्था सनवयस से 2012 में ररटायडय हुए, उनका
भी पररवार बाहर रहता रहा तर्था केशव प्रसाद नसंह प्रा०
नवद्यालय नमठवार में अध्यापक र्थे और 2008 में
अवकाश प्राप्त हुए है एवं श्रीकृष्ण नसंह उस समय टाउन
पालीटेकननक के छात्र र्थे और पढाई के बाद सनवयस
करने लगे और 2016 में ररटायडय हुए है इनका पररवार
भी बाहर रहता है।
7. यह नक नववानदत भूनम हम सायल के
नपता रामचीज नसंह व हम सायल व हमारे भाइयो वारा
स्वयं की उपानजयत धन से कबाला ली गयी भूनम रही है
कदानप इसमें नकसी प्रकार से भगवान नसंह व राजा राम
नसंह का कोई हक व नहस्सा व स्वत्व नहीं रहा है और न
है और न कभी उनका कब्जा दखल रहा है।
8. यह नक नवपक्षी सं० 1 उमाशंकर काफी
चतुर चालाक व नफतरबात व्यनक्त है और अपनी
नफतरबाजी से बदननयनत वारा हम चारो भाईयों के नाम
पर फजी हस्ताक्षर कर व कराकर फजी मूल वाद योनजत
नकये और अहलकारान को सानजश में करके सानजशी
तौर पर अप्रत्यक्, रूप से अपनी स्व० नसनद्ध के नलये
एकपक्षीय आदेश व नडक्री हानसल कर नलये।

9. यह नक नववानदत भूनम से कभी कोई
वास्ता सरोकार नवपक्षी श्रेणी नं० 1 अर्थवा उऩके नपता
व चाचा राजाराम नसंह व भगवान नसंह का नहीं रहा है
और न है और न कभी कानबज दखील रहे है और न ही
हम सायल व नवपक्षी श्रेणी नं० 2 का कब्जा दखल रहा
है व है।
10. यह नक कनर्थत मूल वाद योनजत
करके एकपक्षीय आदेश व नडक्री पाररत करा लेने से
सख्त नुकसान हम सायल समेत नवपक्षी श्र० नं० 2 का
है नकन्तु तजवीजसानी दानखल करते वक्त गांव पर
मौजूद न रहने के कारण इऩ्हे नवपक्षीगण श्रे० नं० 2
कायम नकया गया है।
11- यह नक नदनांक 25.04.2022 को
नवपक्षी उमाशंकर नसंह वारा गांव में यह कहते हुए सुना
गया नक नववानदत भूनम तो ग्रीन रोड़ में जा रही है और
उसमें हमारा नाम व हक नहस्सा के बावत बहुत पहले
नडक्री हो चुकी है। हमारा नहस्सा आधार हो गया है, तब
प्रार्थी वारा कागजात की छानबीन कराने लगे एवं दौरान
छानबीन उक्त एकपक्षीय आदेश व नडक्री की जानकारी
हुई तब राजस्व अनभलेखागार बनलया में जररये मुहररयर
मुआइना की दरखास्त नदनांक 28.04.2022 को
नदलवाया। नदनांक 02.05.2022 को पत्रावली
उपलब्ध हुई तो कुल फजी व सानजशी काययवाही व
एकपक्षीय आदेश व नडक्री की पूणयरूपेण जानकारी हुई
है। इसके पहले कदानप नकसी प्रकार की जानकारी हमें
नहीं हो पायी है और न होने दी गयी।
12. यह नक तजवीजसानी प्रार्थयना पत्र
प्रस्तुत करने में जानबूझकर नवलम्ब नहीं हुआ है बनल्क
जो भी देर हुआ है, वह नाजानकारी एवं उपरोक्त
पररनस्र्थनतयों में हुआ है जो दफा 5 नमयाद कानून के
अऩ्तगयत क्षमा होने योग्य है।"

7. The contesting respondents have
filed objections wherein it was prayed to
reject the said application on ground of
delay as well as on merit.

8. During pendency of above
referred recall application, petitioners have
also moved an application on 04.08.2022
for appointment of a handwriting expert to
verify the allegation of forged signatures.

9. The application filed under
Order 9 Rule 13 was dismissed by an order
dated 08.03.2024, mainly on ground that
father of petitioners has not objected or
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
challenged the order dated 01.02.1975
during his life time. Petitioners' father was
served and there was no ground to condone
the huge delay. The relevant part thereof is
mentioned hereinafter :-

"उभयपक्षों के नववान अनधवक्ता के तकय
सुने गये तर्था पत्रावली का अवलोकन नकया गया।
अवलोकन से स्पष्ट होता है नक प्रार्थयना पत्र पोषणीयता
एवं कालबानधता नदनांक 29.09.2022 व प्रर्थम
धाययता प्रार्थयना पत्र 29.05.2023 तर्था तजबीजसानी
प्रार्थयना पत्र नदनांक 04.05.2022 पर नवस्तृत बहस
सुनने के उपरान्त यह तथ्य प्रकाश में आया नक नपता
रामचीज ने अपने जीवनकाल में आदेश नदनांक
01.02.1975 को चुनौती नहीं नदया और अगर पुत्र
ने नपता के नवरूद्ध वाद दानखल कर अनुतोष मांगा और
वह अनुतोष स्वीकृत हो गया तो कालान्तर में वहीं पुत्र
नपता के उिरानधकारी हुआ तो पुत्र को पुनूँः उक्त कृत्य
को चुनौती देने का अनधकार नहीं है और नपता का
संज्ञान पुत्र का संज्ञान माना जायेगा क्योंनक रामचीज नसंह
प्रनतवादी सम्मन मूल वाद मे वाजाफ्ता खास तामील है
और सम्मन तामीला नदनांक 19.12.1974 का है,
संज्ञान लेने की नतनर्थ के बाद अब काल सीमा नवस्ताररत
नहीं नकया जा सकता। इस प्रकार पोषणीयता व
कालसीमा के नबन्दु पर ही पुनयस्र्थापन वाद ननरस्त होने
योग्य है। इस तथ्य को नवनशष्ट रूप से अस्वीकार भी नहीं
नकया गया। मूल वाद में संलग्न सम्मन के पुश्त पर
तजबीजसानीकताय के नपता का हस्ताक्षर नवद्यमान नहीं
र्था। उनके स्र्थान पर नकसी छद््‌मवेशी ने हस्ताक्षर बनाया
है या नपता पुत्र का ररश्ता भी कटु र्था, का उल्लेख नहीं
है व फ्राड के तथ्य न तो अपने अनभवचन में कहा गया
है और न नसद्ध नकया गया है। मा० उच्च न्यायालय ने
1976 एल०आर० पेज 42 पर यह स्पष्ट अवधाररत
नकया है नक प्रगण्ड नकया जाना चानहए। नपता पुत्र के
मध्य के नववाद को लगभग 46 वषय बाद ररओपेन करने
का औनचत्य नहीं रह जाता। पुनयस्र्थापनकताय वारा जो
दृष्टांत दनशयत नकये गये हैं. वह वतयमान वाद से नभन्न है।
इसनलए दृष्टांत वतयमान वाद में लागू नहीं होते। मूल वाद
नपता व पुत्र के मध्य ननणीत हुआ है अब इस स्तर पर
पुनूँः जागृत करने का औनचत्य नहीं रह जाता
पुनयस्र्थापनकताय की धाययता का प्रश्न है, व्यवहार संनहता
के आदेश -9 रूल-13 प्रनतवादी के नवरुद्ध एकपक्षीय
आदेश को ननरस्त करने के नलए धारा - 151 जहां
स्पष्ट प्रानवधान वनणयत है, वहां 151 शनक्तयों का प्रयोग
नहीं नकया जा सकता। नपता का सम्मन मूल वाद में
बजाफ्त खास तामील है, नपता का संज्ञान पुत्र का संज्ञान
माना जायेगा, केशव के अन्य भाईयों ने भी इसे
पुनयस्र्थआपन वाद के माध्यम से चुनौती नहीं नदया है,
46 वषों के नवलम्ब का संतोषजनक स्पष्टीकरण भी
प्रस्तुत नहीं नकया गया है। इस प्रकार पुनयस्र्थआपन वाद
कालबाधा एवं पोषणीयता के नबन्दु पर ही ननरस्त करने
योग्य है। "

10. The above referred order was
challenged by petitioners before the Board
of Revenue, however, it was also got
dismissed by order dated 13.06.2024 on
similar ground and for reference, relevant
part thereof is mentioned hereinafter :-

"5- उभयपक्षों के नववान अनधवक्ताओं के
तकों तर्था पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध अनभलेखों के
अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट होता है नक वाद संख्या
138/74 रामाशंकर आनद बनाम रामचीज आनद में
पाररत आदेश नदनांक 01.02.1975 के नवरूद्ध
ननगरानीकतायगण की तरफ से पुनस्र्थायपन नदनांक
04.05.2022 को प्रस्तुत नकया गया। आदेश नदनांक
01.02.1975 से उक्त वाद प्रनतवादी रामचीज नसंह
के नवरूद्ध नडक्री नकया गया र्था। पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध
वाद पत्र के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट होता है नक
ननगरानीकताय संख्या 1 व 2 तर्था ननगरानीकताय संख्या
3 लगायत 6 के नपता उपरोक्त वाद में वादी र्थे नजनके
वारा अपने नपता रामचीज नसंह के नवरूद्ध उपरोक्त वाद
प्रस्तुत नकया गया र्था एवं स्वयं वादीगण को प्रनतवादी
संख्या 2 व 3 के सार्थ नववानदत भूनम का सहभूनमधर
घोनषत नकये जाने की प्रार्थयना की गई। उक्त पुनस्र्थायपना
प्रार्थयना पत्र में मुख्य रूप से उपरोक्त वाद की समस्त
काययवाही फजी व एकपक्षीय रूप से ननष्पानदत नकये
जाने के आधार पर पुनस्र्थायपना प्रार्थयना पत्र प्रस्तुत नकया
गया। उक्त पुनस्र्थायपना प्रार्थयना पत्र के नवरूद्ध प्रनतपक्षी
संख्या 4 वारा आपनि प्रस्तुत करते हुए पुनस्र्थायपना
प्रार्थयना पत्र को अपोषणीय व कालबानधत होने के
आधार पर ननरस्त नकये जाने की प्रार्थयना करते हुए यह
कर्थन नकया गया नक पुनस्र्थायपना प्रार्थयना पत्र लगभग
48 वषय बाद प्रस्तुत नकया गया है। नजसका उद्देश्य मात्र
10 All. Keshav Prasad Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
669
नववानदत भूनम के अनधग्रहण के पश्चात मुआवजे की
धनरानश को अवैधाननक रूप से प्राप्त जीवनकाल में
कभी
भी
आदेश
नदनांक
01.02.1975
ननगरानीकतायगण पर बाध्यकारी है। अवर न्यायालय ने
प्रश्नगत आदेश में उनल्लनखत आधारों पर यह मन्तव्य
व्यनक्त नकया है नक मूल वाद नपता व पूत्र के मध्य
ननणीत हुआ है, अतूँः 46 वषय पश्चात वाद को पुनूँः
जागृत करने का कोई औनचत्य नहीं है। पत्रावली पर
उपलब्ध वाद पत्र एवं पुनस्र्थायपना प्रार्थयना पत्र के नवरूद्ध
प्रस्तुत आपनि में उनल्लनखत सजरा खानदान से यह
स्पष्ट होता है नक उपरोक्त वाद के सभी पक्षकार एक ही
खानदान के हैं तर्था वादीगण उपरोक्त वाद के प्रनतवादी
संख्या 1 के पुत्रगण हैं। अतूँः उपरोक्त के आधार पर
प्रनतवादी संख्या 1 रामचीज नसंह को आदेश नदनांक
01.02.1975 की अपने जीवनकाल में जानकारी न
होना तकयपूणय प्रतीत नहीं होता है। अवर न्यायालय वारा
प्रश्नगत आदेश में पुनस्र्थायपना प्रार्थयना पत्र को ननरस्त
नकये जाने का जो आधार नलया गया है वह न्यायसंगत
व नवनधक नसद्धान्तो के अऩुकूल होने के कारण उसमें
हस्तक्षेप नकये जाने का कोई औनचत्य प्रतीत नहीं होता
है। ननगरानी बलहीन होने के कारण ग्राह्यता स्तर पर
ननरस्त नकये जाने योग्य है।
उपरोक्त तथ्यों, पररनस्र्थनतयों एवं नववेचना
के आलोक में प्रस्तुत ननगरानी ग्राह्यता स्तर पर ननरस्त
की जाती है। बाद आवश्यक काययवाही पत्रावली दानखल
दफ्तर हो। स्र्थगनादेश यनद कोई हो तो उसे भी ननरस्त
नकया जाता है। "

11. In the aforesaid circumstances,
this writ petition is being filed. Learned
counsel for petitioners has harped mainly
upon that contesting respondents have
included petitioners as plaintiff as imposter
and their signatures were forged, however,
there is no expert opinion on record as well
as application filed for expert opinion does
not appear to be effectively pressed.

12. So far as merit is concerned, it
could not be considered at this stage since
this case is presently arising out of an
application filed under Order 9 Rule 13
C.P.C. i.e. to set aside ex-parte order
whereby it was dismissed since no
explanation was given to condone delay
i.e. delay was not condoned.

13.

Learned
counsel
for
contesting respondents has supported the
impugned order that a huge delay of about
48 years has not been explained properly.
No separate application was filed for
condonation of delay as well as that
allegation of fraud and forgery was not
established even prima facie.

14. Heard counsel for parties and
perused the record.

15. The Supreme Court in a very
recent case of Pathapati Subba Reddy
(Died) By L.Rs. and Others Versus
Special Deputy Collector (LA), 2024
SCC OnLine SC 513 has dealt with
consideration of condonation of delay in
such applications and for reference,
relevant paragraph thereof is reproduced
hereinafter :-

"26. On a harmonious
consideration of the provisions of
the law, as aforesaid, and the law
laid down by this Court, it is
evident that:

(i) Law of limitation is
based upon public policy that there
should be an end to litigation by
forfeiting the right to remedy rather
than the right itself;
(ii) A right or the remedy
that has not been exercised or
availed of for a long time must
come to an end or cease to exist
after a fixed period of time;
(iii) The provisions of the
Limitation Act have to be construed
differently, such as Section 3 has to
be construed in a strict sense
670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
whereas Section 5 has to be
construed liberally;
(iv) In order to advance
substantial justice, though liberal
approach,
justice-oriented
approach or cause of substantial
justice may be kept in mind but the
same cannot be used to defeat the
substantial
law
of
limitation
contained in Section 3 of the
Limitation Act;
(v) Courts are empowered
to exercise discretion to condone
the delay if sufficient cause had
been explained, but that exercise of
power is discretionary in nature
and may not be exercised even if
sufficient cause is established for
various factors such as, where
there
is
inordinate
delay,
negligence
and
want
of
due
diligence;
(vi) Merely some persons
obtained relief in similar matter, it
does not mean that others are also
entitled to the same benefit if the
court is not satisfied with the cause
shown for the delay in filing the
appeal;
(vii) Merits of the case are
not required to be considered in
condoning the delay; and
(viii) Delay condonation
application has to be decided on
the parameters laid down for
condoning the delay and condoning
the delay for the reason that the
conditions have been imposed,
tantamounts to disregarding the
statutory provision."

16. In the present case, delay is
huge, which is about 48 years i.e. about
half century of years. Date of knowledge of
an order passed in the year 1975 after such
huge delay is being referred on basis of a
very vague explanation that petitioner came
to know about said order only when
compensation was given to contesting
respondent in the year 2022, when part of
land was acquired by National Highway
Authority. Nothing substantive was stated
in the said paragraph.

17. It is not the case of petitioners
that they were not in possession of their
share as decided by the decree. Rather it
appears that it is a dispute since now
money is involved. In case, petitioners have
a share in land which is acquired, their
requisite share in compensation will be
decided by the Land Acquisition Officer.

18. The petitioners have also not
challenged the sale-deed executed by
contesting
respondent
with
National
Highway Authority in the year 2022, till
date.

19. It is also well settled that there
is no mandatory requirement to file a
separate application for condonation of
delay, therefore, the averment made in said
application in paragraph 11 which is also
quoted earlier is also being considered.

20. In the said paragraph, it is
being stated that on 25.04.2022, they heard
that their father were saying that the land
acquired by National Highway Authority
belongs to contesting defendants on basis
of some decree. Such averment is very
vague as well as that a further explanation
that
only
thereafter
petitioners
have
inquired about suit proceedings does not
inspired confidence as well.

21. The Court is conscious that
'fraud initiates every solemn act', however,
fraud has to be asserted effectively and not
10 All. M/S Young Style Overseas Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
671
in a vague manner. The allegation that
petitioners' signatures were forged in the
suit being one of plaintiffs does not inspire
confidence since no expert opinion is
placed on record in this regard as well as
application for same was not even pressed
before learned Trial Court or Revisional
Court.

22. The fraud cannot be considered
on vague ground and for that there must be
substance but in present case, it is
absolutely vague without any material,
since it required satisfaction of high
standard of proof, which is absolutely
absent.

23. Petitioners have miserably
failed to provide reasonable explanation to
condone huge delay of about half of
century of years and as referred above, in
such cases, instead of liberal, a strict
approach has to be adopted, therefore, I do
not find that there is any illegality in
impugned order whereby application filed
under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was rejected
by learned Trial Court on ground that
extraordinary delay of 48 years remained
unexplained and such findings were rightly
upheld by Board of Revenue. Accordingly,
this writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 671
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ -C No. 26449 of 2022

M/S Young Style Overseas ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sanjay
Goswami,
Shreyas
Srivastava,
Sudhanshu Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Chandan Kumar, Swapnil Kumar

A. Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act,1899section
47-A(3)-Securitisation
and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement
of
Security
Interest
Act,2002(SARFAESI Act,2002)-Section 13,
rule 8,9-Whether sale of property under
SARFAESI Act through public tender is
exempt from reassessment under section
47-A of the Indian Stamp Act,1899-The
petitioner
purchased
a
mortgaged
property
through
a
tender
process
conducted
under
SARFAESI
Act-the
District Magistrate later determined a
deficiency of Rs. 1.45 crore in stamp duty,
claiming that the sale price did not reflect
the
market
value
of
the
industrial
property-The petitioner argued tht the
tender
process
constituted
a
public
auction and stamp duty was correctly paid
based on the sale consideration-Held, the
court
set
aside
the
Collector's
determination of stamp duty deficiency,
holding that the sale under SARFAESI
rules was a public sale, with the sale
consideration representing the market
value-the court found no fraudulent intent
or undervaluation justifying reassessment
under section 47-A.(Para 1 to 108)

The writ petition is disposed of.(E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. V.N. Devadoss Vs Chief Rev. Contl. Offr.-
cum-Insp. & ors.(2009) 7 SCC 438

2. Ballyfabs Intrnl. Ltd. Vs St. of W.B. & ors.,
WPA No. 7006 of 2020

3. Vishwanath Agarwal Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.(2004) 96 RD 635

4. Secy. Of St. Vs Sunderji Shivaji & Co. &
ors.(1938) AIR Privy Council 12,