The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court while allowing the petition observed that the test of reasonable period of time, essentially be taken care off in case, the party to the case is approaching the Court for extension of time period.
A Single Bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Shatrughan Yadav.
The deponent/State by way of instituting an application dated 21.11.2023 sought prayer for extension of time, as provided in the order dated 27.09.2022.
While filing writ petition Matters Under Article 227 (Shatrughan Yadav Vs State of U.P and Others) the petitioner, namely, Shatrughan Yadav sought prayer for issuance of a direction to respondent/ opposite party nos 2 and 3 to conclude the survey bandobast, initiated under Section 49 of U.P Revenue Code, 2006, in respect to village- Majha Rath and Majha Durgaganj, Tehsil- Tarabganj, District- Gonda within stipulated period of time as fixed by the Court.
The petitioner further submitted that the matter of survey bandobast is pending since 2020 and the gazette notification was also annexed alongwith the petition.
The Court while disposing of the petition directed to the opposite party nos 2 and 3 to conclude the survey bandobast under Section 49 of the Code, 2006 with respective villages, within period of six months, from the date an authenticated copy of the order is placed before the authority concerned and it was further observed that the Court did not examine the case of the either parties, on merits and it was open to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law.
In compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a representation on 12.07.2023 and the said representation was disposed of vide order dated 28.07.2023, while informing to the petitioner that the survey bandobast proceeding is going on and this will take some more time, ultimately the survey proceeding could not be completed within time prescribed by the Court and therefore, the petitioner moved contempt petition, which is pending consideration before the Contempt Court.
The contention of counsel for the State/applicant is that the petitioner is a resident of village- Durgaganj and the dispute is regarding time bound survey, as per Record Maintenance Rule, 1978, by the survey team headed by Assistant Record Officer, Ayodhya and Gonda.
He submitted that the authorities initiated the proceeding with respect of conducting survey bandobast as per the provisions contained in the Code, 2006 and the proceedings are a bit late for the reason that the sugar crop was ripe in the month of September, 2022 and thereafter the proceeding started in the month of December, 2022.
In the month of December, the proceeding of measurement (paimaish) were initiated and it was duly processed, which continued till the month of March, 2023 but the dispute of the border arose between the Districts- Ayodhya and Gonda and a suit was instituted prior to further proceedings of the measurement (paimaish) and a request was made to the team of measurement (paimaish) to drop the proceeding of survey bandobast.
In the meantime, period prescribed by the Court for concluding the bandobast survey proceedings got completed and thus the petitioner preferred a contempt petition before this Court, wherein the Contempt Court vide order dated 09.11.2023, while fixing a date, opened it to the applicants to file compliance affidavit or any further order, if passed on application for extension of time moved by the applicant and failing which the authorities were directed to appear in person on 12.12.2023.
Per contra, counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that the application filed by the deponent/ State authorities are not maintainable as the same is amount to review/ revision of the final order passed by the Court.
He submitted that it has been held by the Apex Court that no miscellaneous application is permitted, in a finally decided case.
The Court observed that,
Having heard counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that initially writ petition was filed by the petitioner, namely, Shatrughan Yadav before the Court vide Matters Under Article 227, which was decided vide order dated 27.09.2022, while issuing directions to the respondent nos 2 and 3 of the writ petition, to conclude the survey bandobast as per provisions of Section 49 of the Code, 2006 regarding village- Majha Rath and Majha Durgaganj, within period of six months.
The aforesaid bandobast survey could not be completed within the prescribed period of time and therefore, the contempt petition bearing Contempt Case is instituted before the Contempt Court.
Once the survey bandobast could not be completed by the State authorities within time prescribed by the Court, they moved the application with the prayer for extension of time as is prescribed by the Court in the order dated 27.09.2022.
The Court examined the issue which crop up before the Court that whether the miscellaneous application is maintainable in a finally decided petition and secondly, that whether the reasons mentioned in the application for extension of time are sufficient and proper for extension of time and the bona fide thereof and it resulted that so long as the first question with respect to maintainability of the application is concerned, the Apex Court in case of Brahma Dutt Sharma (supra) has held that ‘no miscellaneous application could be filed in the petition to revive proceeding in respect of subsequent events after two years.’ The ratio which has been drawn by the Apex Court is very overt from the reading of the paragraph 10 of the judgment as the same, says that the miscellaneous application is not maintainable in respect of subsequent events.
So far as the case is concerned, application is moved for extension of time and there is no other prayer with respect to any subsequent event. Had it been a case of the State Government that by way of moving the application certain subsequent events are brought for consideration and disposal before the Court, the ratio of the judgment in Brahma Dutt Sharma (supra) would have been applied.
In fact, the extension of time is not amount to reviving the proceeding for subsequent events and the circumstances in the given situation is identical to the judgment rendered by the Full Bench in case of Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi (supra). In fact, the Court provides the time for concluding any proceedings either there is any provision of any statute which provides the time period or the probable time for concluding any proceeding to the discretion of the Court, if no such time prescribed by the statute. Even the time which is prescribed for conclusion of any proceeding by any authority or Court also depends on probability of conclusion of the same and it would not be proper to stop the further proceeding if prescribed time is over, otherwise that shall hamper the very object of dispensation of justice.
So far as the first question is concerned, the Court is of the considered opinion that the application for extension of time prescribed in a decided writ petition is maintainable provided the reasons are properly and categorically explained and the bona fide of such authorities are shown, subject to condition that the same would not change the nature of the final judgment and order and further no subsequent event is brought for adjudication afresh.
“Dealing with the second issue as is raised by the petitioner, while filing the objection that the reasons for non compliance of the order dated 27.09.2022 has not properly been explained, the Court went through the reasons explained in the affidavit in support of the application for extension of time.
The reasons for non compliance of the order dated 27.09.2022 within time prescribed, is explained, as due to the ripeness of the crop of sugarcane, over the land in question, the survey proceeding was stopped for some period of time. The Court has also noticed the chart transcribed under the affidavit which says that for completing the survey of the village, this will take more than five years, though, the time prescribed are not based on any statutory provision but it is based on the probability and the Court is of considered opinion that the test of reasonable period of time, essentially be taken care off in case, the party to the case is approaching the Court for extension of time period”, the Court further observed while allowing the petition.
“Consequently, the applicants/State authorities i.e respondent nos 2 and 3 are given further period of one year to conclude the survey bandobast of village- Majha Rath and Majha Durgaganj, Tehsil Tarabganj, District- Gonda and liberty is also granted to the applicants that if the aforesaid survey bandobast is not completed within the time prescribed by the Court, they may move application for further extension of time, while explaining the bona fide reasons and mentioning the stage of the proceedings done, uptill filing of such application”, the Court ordered.