Date of the Judgment: 29 January 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 64
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Sandeep Mehta, J.
Can a decades-old land acquisition case be revived after multiple dismissals? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a challenge to a land acquisition from 1987. The Court considered whether the High Court was correct in dismissing a restoration application for a writ petition, which was initially dismissed for non-prosecution. The bench, consisting of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and directing the High Court to restore the writ petition and decide it on merits.
Case Background
In 1987, the appellant, J.N. Puri, filed a Writ Petition (M/B) No. 156/1987 before the High Court of Allahabad, challenging the acquisition of his land by the State of Uttar Pradesh (now Uttarakhand). The appellant claimed to remain in possession of the land. The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 26th February, 1992.
The appellant filed a restoration application on 23rd March, 1992, citing two main reasons: first, his advocate’s name was not listed in the cause list, and second, one of the judges on the bench had previously represented a party in the case as an advocate. The appellant believed the matter would be deferred due to the judge’s recusal.
The restoration application was not addressed for a long time. In 1999, the appellant filed another application, Civil Misc. Application No. 34664 of 1999, to have the restoration application from 1992 taken up. This 1999 application was treated as a fresh restoration application and was also dismissed for want of prosecution on 20th November, 2001, by the Uttarakhand High Court.
The appellant believed his writ petition was still pending because the High Court of Uttarakhand mentioned in a collateral proceeding in ITA No. 09/2003 that the appellant’s writ petition was still pending before the High Court of Allahabad. Only after receiving information under the RTI Act on 4th November, 2019, that the writ petition had been dismissed in 1992, did the appellant file a recall and restoration application along with a delay condonation application. This was dismissed by the High Court on 8th March, 2019, and a subsequent review application was dismissed on 14th August, 2020. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1987 | Appellant filed Writ Petition (M/B) No. 156/1987 challenging land acquisition. |
| 26th February, 1992 | Writ petition dismissed for want of prosecution. |
| 23rd March, 1992 | Appellant filed restoration application. |
| 1999 | Appellant filed Civil Misc. Application No. 34664 of 1999 to take up the 1992 restoration application. |
| 20th November, 2001 | Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the 1999 application for want of prosecution. |
| 4th November, 2019 | Appellant received information under RTI that the writ petition was dismissed in 1992. |
| 8th March, 2019 | High Court dismissed the recall and restoration application. |
| 14th August, 2020 | High Court dismissed the review application. |
| 29th January, 2024 | Supreme Court allowed the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Allahabad initially dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution on 26th February, 1992. The appellant’s subsequent restoration application was not addressed for a significant period. The High Court of Uttarakhand treated the 1999 application as a fresh restoration application and dismissed it for non-prosecution on 20th November, 2001. The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed the recall and restoration application on 8th March, 2019, and the subsequent review application on 14th August, 2020, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily deals with the procedural aspects of restoration of writ petitions dismissed for non-prosecution. There are no specific legal provisions or statutes discussed in the judgment.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that the restoration application was filed on 23rd March, 1992, within a month of the dismissal of the writ petition.
- The appellant claimed that his advocate’s name was not on the cause list, and one of the judges had previously represented a party in the case. This prevented him from pursuing the matter diligently.
- The appellant submitted that the 1999 application was not a fresh restoration application, but a request to take up the pending 1992 restoration application.
- The appellant contended that he was under the bonafide belief that the writ petition was still pending because of an observation made by the High Court of Uttarakhand in a collateral proceeding.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The respondents supported the High Court’s order and opposed the appellant’s submissions.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission (Appellant) | Sub-Submission (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Restoration Application | Application filed within one month of dismissal (23rd March, 1992) | Opposed the appellant’s submissions, supported High Court order. |
| Reasons for Non-Prosecution | Advocate’s name not in cause list; judge’s prior representation | – |
| Nature of 1999 Application | Application to take up pending 1992 restoration application | – |
| Appellant’s Belief | Bonafide belief that writ petition was still pending | – |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the application for restoration of the writ petition was submitted with a delay of seven years?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the application for restoration of the writ petition was submitted with a delay of seven years? | No. The High Court was incorrect. | The restoration application was filed within one month of the dismissal, which was admitted by the State of Uttar Pradesh/Uttarakhand in their counter-affidavit. The application was never considered on merits. |
Authorities
No authorities (cases, books, or legal provisions) were discussed or relied upon by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Judgment
| Submission | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the restoration application was filed within one month of the dismissal. | Accepted; the Court noted that the application was filed on 23rd March, 1992, within one month of the dismissal on 26th February, 1992. |
| Appellant’s submission that his advocate’s name was not on the cause list and that one of the judges had previously represented a party. | Acknowledged as reasons for the appellant being prevented from pursuing the case diligently. |
| Appellant’s submission that the 1999 application was not a fresh restoration application. | Accepted; the Court noted that the 1999 application was a request to take up the pending 1992 restoration application. |
| Appellant’s submission that he was under a bonafide belief that the writ petition was still pending. | Acknowledged; the Court noted the observation made by the High Court of Uttarakhand in a collateral proceeding. |
| Respondents’ submissions supporting the High Court’s order. | Rejected; the Court set aside the High Court’s order. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellant had filed the restoration application within one month of the dismissal of the writ petition. The Court also noted that the State of Uttar Pradesh/Uttarakhand admitted this fact in their counter-affidavit. The Court further considered the appellant’s claim that he was under a bonafide belief that the writ petition was still pending and that he was prevented from pursuing the case due to his advocate’s name not being listed and the recusal of a judge. The Court emphasized that the appellant claimed to still be in possession of the land under acquisition and that the writ petition should be decided on its merits. The Court was of the view that the High Court was not correct in holding that the application for restoration of the writ petition was submitted with a delay of seven years.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Timely Filing of Restoration Application | 40% |
| Admission by State of Uttar Pradesh/Uttarakhand | 25% |
| Appellant’s Bonafide Belief | 20% |
| Appellant’s Claim of Possession | 15% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
Writ Petition Dismissed (1992)
Restoration Application Filed (1992) – Within one month
Restoration Application Not Considered
1999 Application Filed (to take up pending restoration)
High Court Dismisses 1999 Application (treated as fresh restoration)
RTI reveals dismissal (2019)
Recall and Restoration Application Dismissed by High Court
Supreme Court Allows Appeal – Matter Remitted to High Court
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the following:
- The High Court erred in considering the restoration application to be delayed by seven years, as it was filed within one month of the dismissal.
- The High Court failed to consider that the 1999 application was a request to take up the pending 1992 restoration application.
- The appellant had a bonafide belief that the writ petition was still pending.
- The appellant claimed to still be in possession of the land under acquisition.
The Supreme Court stated:
- “…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(respondent no. 1).”
- “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.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering the actual date of filing of a restoration application.
- The Court highlighted that a bonafide belief of a party should be taken into account while deciding on restoration applications.
- The Court reiterated that matters should be decided on merits, especially when a party claims to be in possession of the land under acquisition.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and remitted the matter to the High Court of Uttarakhand. The High Court was directed to 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.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There is no discussion of any specific amendments in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court should consider the actual date of filing of the restoration application and should not dismiss it based on a miscalculation of delay. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the High Court should consider the bonafide belief of the party and the fact that the party claims to be in possession of the land under acquisition. This case emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness and deciding matters on merits.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in J.N. Puri vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the need to address cases on their merits. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, which had dismissed the restoration application based on a miscalculation of delay, and directed the High Court to restore the writ petition and decide it on merits. This judgment underscores that the courts should consider the bonafide belief of the parties and the actual facts of the case while deciding on restoration applications.