THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition (M/S) No. 711 of 2003 (Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Naresh Chand S/O late Sri Shalekh Chand R/O Village Mundakhera, Tehsil & Post Laksar, District Haridwar. … Petitioner. Versus 1. Additional Revenue Commissioner Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 2. The Additional Commissioner, Meerut Region, Meerut (U.P.). 3. Additional Sub Divisional Officer Roorkee, District Haridwar. 4. Mahaveer, S/O Late Raja Ram, R/O village Mundakhera Khurd, Tehsil & Post Laksar, District Haridwar … Respondents. Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Nand Prasad learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 & 3. Dated February 14, 2006. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nand Prasad, learned Standing Counsel. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 14-07-2003 passed by the respondent no. 1 whereby the application No. Z.A. 71/2002-03 moved by the deceased father of the petitioner was rejected holding the same to be highly belated. According to the petitioner, his father Shalekh Chand filed a suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R.Act before respondent no.3 for partition of Khata, which was dismissed and an appeal was preferred by him before the Commissioner Meerut Division but the same was also dismissed. Petitioner’s father then filed Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue Allahabad on 30- 5-1979, which was registered as Second Appeal No. 122 of 78-79 Shalekh Chand Vs. Mahaveer, which was admitted and interim 2 order staying operation of the decree passed by the lower court was passed. However, the appellant being an old man could not prosecute the appeal, which was dismissed in default on 17-12- 1984. The appellant Shalekh died on 1.12.2002. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.4 Mahaveer sold the land in dispute in the year 1981 to the co-sharer Bijendra and Rajendra, sons of Kabul Chand but no possession was delivered to them by the petitioner till now even after dismissal of the Second Appeal and the petitioner no.1 is in physical possession over the disputed land. According to the petitioner, he came to know about the stay order dated 30-5-79 after the death of his father and he made inquiry from the Board of Revenue on 5.6.2003 and then only he came to know about the dismissal of the Second Appeal on 17.12.1984 and got the certified copy on 10-6-2003. Thereafter the petitioner filed restoration application on 16.6.2003 and there was no deliberate delay on his part. The names of the petitioner and his brother were mutated in the relevant Khatauni vide order dated 3.1.2003 of the revenue authority. The respondent no.4 in collusion with the revenue authority got a wrong map prepared showing the division of the plot. According to the petitioner the order dated 14.7.2003 is illegal and without jurisdiction. I have gone through the entire material on record including the impugned order dated 14-7-2003 passed by the respondent no.1. In the impugned order itself, the presence of the petitioner has been mentioned. Admittedly, the Second Appeal No. 122 of 1978-79, Shalekh Chand Vs. Mahaveer was dismissed on 17-12-1984. Thus, apparently the petitioner or his deceased father never made any attempt to know the fate of the Second Appeal No. 122 of 1978-79 after obtaining interim order dated 30-5-1979 in his favour for such a long time when the appeal was ultimately dismissed on 17-12-1984. A copy of that order is on record as Annexure No. 2. The said order is a speaking order wherein it was mentioned that in spite of due notice none was present and even process-fee and notices etc. were not filed in the appeal. In my 3 view, the respondent no. 1 has not committed any illegality or manifest error or jurisdictional error in rejecting the application moved by the petitioner for re-opening the case after a lapse of 19 years. The contention of the petitioner that he was not aware of the prolonged litigation between his father and the respondent no.4 till the death of his father cannot be accepted. Moreover, in Annexure No. 4, which is copy of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner has taken a false stand by stating that during the pendency of Appeal No. 286 of 1977 Salekh Chand Vs. Mahavir and others, the father of the petitioner had died, whereas according to the case taken by the petitioner himself, his father Salekh Chand died on 1.12.2002, while the Second Appeal No. 122 of 1978-79 was dismissed as early as on 17-12-1984. This circumstance also goes to show that the petitioner has not come before the Court with clean hands. The impugned order dated 14- 7-2003 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) does not call for any interference. Considering the entire material on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed outright. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP