# Zafarullah Khan v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation Gonda and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1535
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-12-20
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/zafarullah-khan-v-deputy-director-of-consolidation-gonda-and-others-42354
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-Writ
against
rejection
of
revision
under
Consolidation
Act-on
ground
unexplained
long
term
delay-heldrejection of revision without touching
merit
on
ground
of
inordinate,
unexplained
delay-held-proper-
1536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
warrants-no interference by Writ CourtWrit dismissed.

Held: Para-7

All in all the purpose of the Limitation
Law is that the Court could not help the
person who after knowledge that he has
suffered a legal injury kept sleeping over
his right and never approached the Court
for the redressal of his grievances within
an appropriate period of time.
Case Law discussed:
(2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 524; (2011) 14
SCC 578

## Text

3 All] Zafarullah Khan V. Deputy Director Of Consolidation Gonda and others
1535
to the Magistrate concerned for a fresh
consideration and to pass a fresh order for
taking cognizance of offence and issuance of
process against the accused persons.

33. It has also been argued on behalf of
the revisionists that the Magistrate while
issuing summons for facing trial to the
accused persons has not taken into account
the fact that the accused persons, presently
the revisionist in the two cases, are not
private persons, but are the companies and
has also not considered the due provisions of
law in issuing summons to them as per law.
Since the matter is being remitted for fresh
consideration by the court below,and the
Court below by passing the impugned order
has not passed any order in this context, this
Court does not propose to issue any specific
direction to the Magistrate concerned.
However, the Magistrate while issuing
process to the accused persons shall take into
consideration all the relevant provisions
before passing any order.

34. Before parting with the case, the
Court shall like to record that section 18 of
the General Rules (Civil), 1857 provides for
the prohibition of the Rubber Stamp in
judicial orders and the use of Rubber Stamp
for passing any order has been forbidden by
the circular letter of the High Court,
Allahabad no. 6 of 2001 dated 7th February,
2001. By this circular letter it was impressed
upon the Judicial Officers of the Subordinate
Courts that for passing any judicial order, the
Rubber Stamp shall not be used. It is
unfortunate to observe that despite this
circular letter of the year 2001, the
Magistrate in the present case has passed the
impugned judicial order with the use of
rubber stamp and further by filling up the
date in it.

35. It appears that all the Judicial
Officers are not taking note of the circular
letter, hence the Registrar General is directed
to issue a direction to all the Judicial Officers
through the District Judges concerned to
ensure that any judicial order be not passed
by way of using the Rubber Stamp.

36. The revision is hereby allowed and
the impugned order dated 10th November,
2009 is hereby set aside.

37. The Magistrate concerned shall
pass a fresh order for taking cognizance in
the matter and shall thereafter, proceed with
the trial of the case in accordance with law.

38. Let a copy of this judgment be also
sent to the Registrar General for compliance.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.12.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.

Consolidation No. - 732 Of 2012

Zafarullah Khan

...Applicant
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation Gonda
And Ors.

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ambhrish Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226-Writ
against
rejection
of
revision
under
Consolidation
Act-on
ground
unexplained
long
term
delay-heldrejection of revision without touching
merit
on
ground
of
inordinate,
unexplained
delay-held-proper-
1536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
warrants-no interference by Writ CourtWrit dismissed.

Held: Para-7

All in all the purpose of the Limitation
Law is that the Court could not help the
person who after knowledge that he has
suffered a legal injury kept sleeping over
his right and never approached the Court
for the redressal of his grievances within
an appropriate period of time.
Case Law discussed:
(2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 524; (2011) 14
SCC 578

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ambhrish Tripathi,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Vinay Bhushan, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. Controversy in the present case
relates
to
land
situated
in
village
Rankibadalpur, Pargana- Sadullah Nagar,
Tahsil- Utraula, District Balrampur. In
respect to said land initially an objection
has been filed by opposite parties no. 3 to 6
under
Section
9-A(2)
of
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, the same
has been allowed by the Consolidation
Officer by order dated 21.12.1981 (
Annexure no.3). Aggrieved by the said
order, petitioner filed a revision,dismissed
by order dated 17.12.1990 passed by
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda.
Hence, the present writ petition has been
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.

3. From the perusal of the pleadings
as made by the petitioner, he has explained
delay in filing of present writ petition at
such a belated stage, para-11 to the writ
petition is quoted as under:-

"11.
That
for
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, petitioner got
knowledge so late, as such there is delay in
filing the writ petition , but in the interest
of justice , the delay in liable to be
condoned
as
the
opposite
parties
committed fraud to grab the ancestral
property of the petitioner."

4. Thus, taking into consideration the
above said fact that statue of limitations is
an enactment in a legal system that sets the
maximum time after an event that legal
proceedings based on that event may be
initiated. It prescribes the time-limit for
different suits within, which an aggrieved
person can approach the court for redress
or justice. The suit, if filed after the
exploration or time-limit, is struck by the
law of limitation. It's basically meant to
protect the long and established user and to
indirectly punish persons who go into a
long slumber over their rights.

5. Under the Civil Legislation of
Rome certain actions were allowed to be
brought at any time and were known as
'Actiones Perpetuae" while on the other
hand certain actions were subjected to a
definite period of limitation & these were
known as 'Actiones Temporalis'. In India
before 1859 there was no uniform law of
limitation, in 1859 it was first enacted as
Code (Act XV of 1859), which was
repealed by the Act of 1877 then came the
Act of 1908. The Act of 1908 was repealed
by the present Statute of 1963 (Act No.36
of 1963).

6. The main objection behind the
Law of Limitation is, not to encourage the
persons to raise disputes with regarding to
the old and stale claims wherein the court
may be reluctant to grant any relief
considering
the
gravity
of
the
3 All] Bare Babu & others V. State of U.P.
1537
dispute/claim. Further, the person who is
not diligent in getting the relief for him/her
by acting within time is stopped from
seeking the relief against any person as he
has given up his right in the said dispute.

7. All in all the purpose of the
Limitation Law is that the Court could not
help the person who after knowledge that
he has suffered a legal injury kept sleeping
over his right and never approached the
Court for the redressal of his grievances
within an appropriate period of time.

8. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case
of Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory
(2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases, 524 after
placing reliance on its earlier judgment
passed in the case of Anshul Agarwal Vs.
Noida (2011) 14 SCC 578 held that if the
delay is not properly explained while filing
a petition/ matter rather there is inordinate
unexplained delay in filing the same , that
matter should be dismissed on the said
ground and in that case there was delay of
1314 days in filing a petition, against an
order dated 16.9.2008, so Hon'ble the
Supreme Court has dismissed the same on
the ground that no sufficient reason has
been explained in filing the petition at a
belated stage .

9. In view of the said fact as in the
present case, there is no satisfactory
explanation has been given by the
petitioner in filing the present writ petition
at a belated stage , so liable to be dismissed
on the said ground.

10. For the foregoing reasons, the
writ petition is dismissed on the ground of
delay and latches.
---------

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.11.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2350 Of 1982

Bare Babu & others

...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri W.H. Khan
Sri I.K. Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.B. Singh
Sri Sageer Ahmad
A.G.A.

Criminal Appeal-against conviction under
section 307/149 I.P.C.-injury caused
relating to watering agricultural field-no
cut injury of sharp weapon-fire injury
inspite of licensed gun-no prosecution
case regarding use of Pharsa-no damage
on vital part of body-no element of
previous
enmity-No
allegation
of
repeated blows-in absence of clinching
material with motive to commit or
attempt to commit murder-out of 3 eye
witness two never came forward to
support prosecution story-considering 33
years pending trial and appeal-have
developed
cordial
relations-conviction
upheld
with
modification
of
their
sentences-converted
to
the
period
undergone with fine of Rs. 5000/-on
each-other appellants namely Ramkesh
and Dhirendra-their participation and
presence
being
doubtful-entitled
for
acquittal-appeal partly allowed.

Held: Para-25

They have also been inside gaol for
sometime and have been under the
Democles Sword for about 33 years of
pending trial and appeal. Accordingly the