J.N. Puri vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh (Now State Of Uttarakhand) & Ors.

2024 INSC 64 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)

J.N. PURI .….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (NOW STATE OF UTTARAKHAND) & ORS. …..RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

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

(i) Writ Petition(M/B) No. 156/1987 dated 8th March, 2019; Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad

and Date: 2024.01.29 18:29:36 IST Reason:

1

(ii) Review Application No. 81 of 2020 dated 14 th 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

dated 26th February, 1992.

5. The appellant filed an application dated 23rd 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 up the restoration application dated 23rd 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

Court rejected the same vide order dated 20th 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

of Uttarakhand under RTI Act, vide communication dated 4th

November, 2019 that the writ petition of the appellant had been

dismissed on default on 26th 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 dated 8th March, 2019. Further, a review application against above

order was filed which also came to be dismissed by order dated

14th 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

Petition(M/B) No. 156/1987 was filed by the appellant on 23rd

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

application dated 23rd 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

restoration application dated 23rd 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

consideration of the application for recall of the order dated 26 th

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

26th 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