- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Feeling aggrieved by an order disposing of an appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regula tion) Act, 1976 whereunder setting aside an order dated 24-2-82 passed by the Prescribed Authority the matter had been remanded for hearing afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE appellate authority had passed the aforesaid order on 16- 10-95. THE petitioner moved an application for supplying the certified copy of the said order on 24-2-96. THE said copy was shown to be ready for delivery on 29-2-96 and was received by the petitioner on 1-3-96. THE present writ petition, however, was presented for reporting before the Stamp Report of the Court on 5-4-96 and returned back to the petitioner on the same day after reporting. THE writ petition was thereafter filed on 8-4-96. In the Registry of this Court. THE Stamp Reporter in his report has pointed out that the petition ought to have been filed on 14-1- 96. THE presentation or the writ petition in the registry of this Court is obviously belated. An explanation for the belated presentation of the writ petition has been furnished by the petitioner asserting that after the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment vide letter dated 29-12-95, the matter was referred to the Secretary Hous ing U. P. Shasan, Lucknow for taking necessary action but the Secretary Housing wrote a letter to the Law Secretary for permission to file the writ petition and the Joint Legal Remembrancer granted the sanction on 31-1-96. It is claimed that the letter granting permission to file the writ petition was received by the Collector, Varanasi on 9-2-96 and thereafter the Assistant Engineer, Urban Land Ceiling, Varanasi was sent to Allahabad who reached thereon 20-2-96 but since the papers were not complete the Standing Counsel vide his letter dated 14-3-96 asked for the wanting papers which were supplied on 25-3-96. From the facts noticed herein above it is clear that although the judgment passed by the appellate authority had been delivered on 16-10-95, its certified copy was not obtained immediately and an application for the purpose was filed quite belatedly on 24-2- 96 that is to say after more than four months. The petitioner has not filed the copies of the correspondence relied upon in support of the explanation for the belated presentation of the writ petition. The explanation furnished points out to the lethargic and leisurely manner in which the matter in regard to the filing of the writ petition was being pursued by the petitioner. The explanation furnished reflects a bureaucratic -passing of the buck- ethos. The matter does not rest here. According to the petitioner the sanction of the legal remembrancer had been received by the Collector, Varanasi on 9-2-96 but the Assistant Engineer who has filed his affidavit in support of the writ petition was sent for filing a writ petition on 20-2-96. The matter again was put in a cold storage in the office of the Standing Counsel. Although the only document annexed with the writ petition besides the certified copy of the impugned judgment are the copy of Gazette notification under Section 10 (3) of the Act dated 7-12-85 and copy of the certificate dated 19-3-86 showing that possession of the land declared surplus had been taken over on the said date and the memo of appeal filed by the respondent No. 2, the Standing Counsel could draft the writ petition and present it for reporting only on 5-4-96. It was thereafter presented in the registry on 8-4- 96.
(3.) IT should not go unnoticed that the petitioner while approaching the equity court invoking the jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 or the Constitution of India should act with utmost diligence and despatch. The petitioner with all the facilities at its command and the Chief Standing Counsel representing it do not appear to have acted at diligently in approaching this Court. The petitioner, there fore, does not deserve any sympathy and the writ petition is liable to be thrown out on the aforesaid ground, but considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the questions of law involved therein this writ petition is being entertained and the learned Standing Counsel representing the petitioners has been heard. It has been strenuously urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority had exceeded the jurisdiction vesting in it as envisaged under Section 33 of the Act by entertaining the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 in the year 1984 against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 24-8-82 even though such an appeal could be entertained within thirty days of the date on which the order appealed against is communicated to the appellant. What has been urged is that in the present case subsequent to the passing of the order dated 24-8-82 declaring an area of 62887. 14 ;square metres of petitioner's land as surplus, a notification under Section 10 (1) of the Act had been published on 31-8-85 and another notification under Section 10 (3) had been published on 7-12-85 and possession of the land declared surplus had been taken over from the respondent No. 2 on 19-3-86 which obviously indicated that the respondent No. 2 had to be imputed with the contents of the final statement envisaged under Section 9 of the Act determining the extent of vacant land held by the said respondent. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the respondent No. 2 ought to be imputed with the knowledge of the contents of the final statement envisaged under Section 9 of the Act determining the extent of the vacant land held by him to be surplus. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner proceeds on the assumption that the Gazette notification envisaged under Section 10 (1) of the Act and Section 10 (3) of the Act had the necessary effect of imputing the respondent No. 2 with the knowledge of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 24-8-82 and in any case at least on 19-3-86 when the possession of the land declared as surplus had been taken over from the respondent No. 2 he ought to have come to know about the extent of the area of the vacant land in his possession which had been declared surplus.;