Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). of 2024)
(Diary No(s). 24776/2020)
2024 INSC 64
J.N. PURI .….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(NOW STATE OF UTTARAKHAND) & ORS. …..RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The instant appeals take exception to the judgment and order
passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Uttarakhand in
th
(i) Writ Petition(M/B) No. 156/1987 dated 8 March, 2019;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by and
Narendra Prasad
Date: 2024.01.29
18:29:36 IST
Reason:
1
th
(ii) Review Application No. 81 of 2020 dated 14 August,
2020.
4. As per the facts emanating from record, the Writ
Petition(M/B) No. 156/1987 was filed by the appellant before the
High Court of Allahabad challenging the acquisition of his land by
the respondents undertaken way back in the year 1987. The
appellant claims that he continues to be in possession of the land.
The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order
th
dated 26 February, 1992.
rd
5. The appellant filed an application dated 23 March, 1992
seeking restoration of the said writ petition mainly on two grounds,
(a) the name of his Advocate Shri G.N. Verma was not printed in
the cause list and (b) one of the Hon’ble Judges(Mr. Justice A.P.
Singh) before whom the matter was listed had himself as an
Advocate filed various applications etc. in the writ petition and
thus, the appellant was carrying a bonafide belief that the matter
would be deferred on account of recusal.
6. It seems that the said restoration application was not taken
up for a significant period of time, upon which the appellant filed
yet another Civil Misc. Application No. 34664 of 1999 in Writ
Petition(M/B) No. 156/1987 in the year 1999 with a prayer to take
2
rd
up the restoration application dated 23 March, 1992 and to pass
appropriate order thereupon.
7. Be that as it may, the application preferred by the appellant
in the year 1999 was treated to be an application for restoration of
the writ petition and the Division Bench of the Uttrakhand High
th
Court rejected the same vide order dated 20 November, 2001, for
want of prosecution.
8. The appellant claims to be carrying a bonafide belief that his
writ petition was still pending because of certain observations
made by the Division Bench of High Court of Uttarakhand in a
collateral proceeding being ITA No. 09/2003 titled as
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. R.B. Premnath & Sons
wherein it was recorded that the writ petition of the appellant was
still pending before the High Court of Allahabad. However, upon
finally receiving an information from the Registry of the High Court
th
of Uttarakhand under RTI Act, vide communication dated 4
November, 2019 that the writ petition of the appellant had been
th
dismissed on default on 26 February, 1992, the appellant
preferred recalling and restoration application with an application
seeking condonation of delay in filing above recalling application,
which was dismissed by the High Court of Uttarakhand vide order
3
th
dated 8 March, 2019. Further, a review application against above
order was filed which also came to be dismissed by order dated
th
14 August, 2020. These two orders are assailed in these appeals.
9. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel for the appellant
submitted that the application for restoration of the Writ
rd
Petition(M/B) No. 156/1987 was filed by the appellant on 23
March, 1992, i.e., within a period of one month from the date of
dismissal of writ petition for non-prosecution. It was submitted
that the name of the appellant’s Advocate was not reflected in the
cause list and that one of the Hon’ble Judges constituting the
Division Bench before whom the matter was listed, had
represented one of the parties in the writ Court and thus, the
appellant was bonafide prevented from pursuing the Civil
Miscellaneous Writ Petition.
10. Learned senior counsel drew Court’s attention to para 5 of
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Uttar
Pradesh/Uttarakhand wherein the factum of filing of the
rd
application dated 23 March, 1992 seeking restoration of Writ
Petition(M/B) No. 156/1987 to its original number is admitted.
11. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the
application filed in the year 1999 which was referred to by the High
4
Court as a restoration application was as a matter of fact an
application seeking passing of appropriate order on the pending
rd
restoration application dated 23 March, 1992. He urged that in
the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the Civil Misc.
Application No. 34664 of 1999, the appellant specifically pleaded
that despite great efforts, the case had not been listed for
th
consideration of the application for recall of the order dated 26
February, 1992.
12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
while supporting the impugned order, vehemently and fervently
opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
appellant.
13. Having considered the entirety of facts prevailing on record,
we are of the view that the High Court of Uttarakhand was not
correct in holding that the application for restoration of the writ
petition which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated
th
26 February, 1992 was submitted with a delay of seven years. As
a matter of fact, the application for restoration was filed within a
period of one month which fact has been admitted at para 5 of the
counter affidavit filed by the State of Uttar
5
Pradesh/Uttarakhand(respondent no. 1). The said application was
never considered on merits.
14. In the facts and circumstances noted above and more
particularly the fact that the appellant still claims to be in
possession of the land under acquisition, we feel that the writ
petition preferred by the appellant should have been heard and
decided on merits.
15. In the wake of the above discussion, the impugned orders are
set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court of Uttarakhand
which shall restore the writ petition of the appellant and proceed
to decide the same on merits expeditiously after giving an
opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
16. The appeals are allowed in these terms.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………….J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
………………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
New Delhi;
January 29, 2024
6