'Appellant Still Claims To Be In Possession': SC Restores Writ Petition Of 1987 Challenging Land Acquisition & Directs U'Khand HC To Decide It On Merits
The Supreme Court remitted a land acquisition case to the Uttarakhand High Court to expeditiously decide the matter on its merits and provide an opportunity for all concerned parties to be heard.
The Allahabad High Court had dismissed a writ petition(in 1992) filed by the appellant challenging the acquisition of his land by the respondents back in 1987. The appellant claimed that he was in the continuous possession of the land.
The appellant later filed an application seeking restoration of the writ petition on two grounds, firstly that the name of his was not printed in the cause list and secondly one of the judges hearing the case had previously served as an advocate and had filed various applications in the writ petition. The restoration application was not taken up for a significant period of time. Subsequently, the appellant filed another application seeking the restoration of the original restoration application and was rejected by the Uttrakhand High Court.
Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “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 Pradesh/Uttarakhand. The said application was never considered on merits.”
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave represented the appellant, while AOR N. Visakamurthy appeared for the respondents.
The appellant argued that the restoration application was filed within a month of the dismissal and stated the High Court's finding of a seven-year delay.
The Supreme Court held 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 was submitted with a delay of seven years.
The Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the High Court of Uttarakhand. The High Court was directed to restore the writ petition and to expeditiously decide the matter on merits after providing an opportunity for all concerned parties to be heard.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals.
Cause Title: J.N. Puri v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Now State of Uttarakhand) & Ors. (2024 INSC 64)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, Advocates Akshit Malpani, Arushi Gaur, Ronak Karanpuria, Vishvajeet Vijaykumar Shinde, and Vinay Kumar Sah
Respondents: AOR Dr. N. Visakamurthy and Ankur Prakash, Advocates Nachiketa Joshi, Sarath Nambiar, Alabhya Dhamija, Arun Kr. Yadav Aga, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, and Priyanka Singh
