K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment of Sri Murli Dhar, District Judge, Lucknow dated 16-5-1978 in M.C.A. No. 98 of 1977-The Salvation Army, Bareilly v. State of U. P.
(2.) THE competent authority through its judgment dated 21-4-1977 had declared 18055.31 Sq. meter vacant land held and possessed by opposite party no. 1 in the present writ petition in a proceeding under Section 8 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Competent Authority opposite party no. 1 had preferred an appeal which was decided through the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party no. 1 in the present writ petition had raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition was filed on 23-9-1978 against the impugned order dated 16-5-1978, hence it was much beyond 90 days and should be dismissed on that ground alone. The learned Counsel for the petitioners suggested that in filing the present writ petition the petitioners needed sanction of the authority for incurring expenses etc. hence some time was spent in obtaining necessary instructions and the delay is not such as may stand in the way of the petitioners and should be condoned in the circumstances of the present case. It was also stressed that the writ petition was admitted by a Division Bench on 22-11-1978, hence the writ petition should not be dismissed on the ground of delay.
(3.) I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. Since the petitioners are State of U. P. and the Competent Authority which needed sanction and necessary expenses for filing the present writ petition and ordinarily the writ petition could be filed by the end of August, 1978, hence the delay of three weeks in preferring the writ petition is not such that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of limitation or laches. I am satisfied that the delay in filing the present writ petition is not such as may stand as a bar in the hearing of the writ petition on merits. More than three weeks were spent in obtaining sanction and money for filing this writ petition (see paragraph 26 of the writ petition.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the appellate authority has patently erred in construing the provisions of Section 19 sub-clause (1) (vii) of the above mentioned Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the contesting opposite party was not a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or under any other corresponding law for the time being in force, hence the appellate authority acted illegally in applying the provisions of Section 19 sub-clause (1) (vii) of the above mentioned Act to the facts of the present case.;