Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5032 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 748 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sukhlal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Collector Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhoo Dayal,Shubham Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. The petitioner assails the order dated 29.10.2007 passed in a revision whereby the revision of the petitioner was dismissed affirming the order dated 27.01.2006 passed by the S.D.M Malihabad, Lucknow. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property in question was recorded in the name of grand father of the petitioner namely Babulal. After the death of Babulal, the name of the petitioner's grand mother namely Kalawati was recorded. It is further urged that Smt. Kalawati had executed a Will in favour of the petitioner whose name came to be recorded in the Khatauni 1360 fasli year under the Category-3 as an Asami. It is urged that the land in question is an ancestral and it has incorrectly been held that its a part of land which is submerged in water and the basis upon which, the order impugned dated 27.01.2006 and 29.10.2007 has been passed is apparently erroneous and the same deserves to be set aside. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. At the outset, it may be noticed that in paragraph-13 of the petition, an attempt has been made by the petitioner to explain the laches. The order dated 29.10.2007 is sought to be challenged and in a casual manner, it has been stated in paragraph-13 that the petitioner is a poor and a old person also a senior citizen and due to financial crisis and not having knowledge of law, he did not file the writ petition. Apparently, the averment as made does not inspire any confidence and appears to be an empty formality. There does not appear to be any bona fide reason, nor there is any adequate explanation explaining the delay and laches in filing the petition. Needless to say the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has purely discretionary remedy and even though with the same rules of limitation are not applicable yet the doctrine of laches has been incorporated to guide the Court to see whether bona fide claims can be considered or a party may not misuse the liberty in approaching the writ court. Even otherwise, from a perusal of the material on record though the petitioner has tried to claim that the land is ancestral on the basis of certain entries made in the Khatauni but there is no supporting orders indicating under which order passed by the competent authority in the name of the grand father or the grand mother or the name of the petitioner was incorporated in the revenue record. The petitioner claim rules on the basis of a Will which also has not been brought on record. It is not clear whether the alleged Will was proved in accordance with law or not coupled with the fact that the nature of the land which is being claimed by the petitioner is submerged land and on the own showing of the petitioner, the rights of the grand father have been shown as Asami. The aforesaid averments do not inspire confidence apart from the fact that these are summary proceedings. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition which is rejected, however, in case, if the petitioner feels that he has any right he may take recourse on the regular side to prove his rights. With the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench