Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9614 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 135 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kavittri Devi Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Barabanki And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suneel Kumar Singh Kalhans,Shikha Srivastava,Yogesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.4. The petitioner, by means of the instant petition, seeks the following relief:- "(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 13.4.2016 passed in revision No. 1121/515 under section 48 of U.P. C.H. Act as well as order dated 18.11.2016, whereby the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki i.e. respondent no. 1, impugned order dated 16.7.2013 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation i.e. opposite party no. 2 in a composite order in Appeal Nos. 197/277 Ambrish Kumar Vs. Mu. Kavittri Devi and others, Appeal No.164/280 Kavittri Devi Vs. Gaon Sabha and Appeal No. 249/372 Kavittri Devi Vs. State, the impugned order dated 21.2.2011 passed in Suit No. 288 u/s 9(A) of U.P. CH Act (State Vs. Kavittri Devi) in respect of khata no. 36 as well as respective Gata No.143/2/0.519, 142/3/0.004 & 143/4/0.004, contained as Annexure No.1 to 4 to this writ petition." A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the order dated 13.04.2016 has been challenged where the petitioner has explained the laches. In response thereto, Shri Kalhans, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has given the explanation regarding laches in Para-6 of the instant petition. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, it will be appropriate to reproduce Para-6 of the petition, which reads as under:- "6. That it is humbly and respectfully submitted that the petitioner who is very poor and unfortunate person who could not assail the impugned order within time because of the reason that the deponent who is the son of petitioner no.1 got major operation of liver in the year 2017 in which the huge amount was expanded and therefore, due to lack of money he could not assail in the year 2018-19 and in the year 2020, the father of petitioner no.2 to 4 was died in the year 2020 all of sudden who was the main source of income and thereafter the entire family became hand to mouth and reached on the verge of starvation and as such slowly-slowly by facing a gross hardship and also entire family facing physical and mental agony and thereafter in the year 2023, the deponent got another operation of kidney in the ye 2023 and therefore, due to unfortunate unavoidable circumstances facing the entire family became very nervous and broken condition this is why due to aforesaid overwhelming condition, the petitioners are too delayed to challenge which is liable to be condoned for the substantial justice and as such technicality of latches should not bar for the substantial justice. Copy of the some relevant documents are being collectively annexed herewith as ANNEXURE NO.5 to the writ petition." Having noticed the aforesaid as well as the decision of the Apex Court in Printers Mysore Ltd. v. M.A. Rasheed and others (2004) 4 SCC 460, the explanation seeking entertainment of the petition assailing an order of the year 2016 is completely bereft of any reasonable explanation which could not be accepted by this Court. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed on account of laches. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench