HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 3323 of 2025 Court No. - 50 HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J. By the impugned order, the revision against the order dated 21.09.1978 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation (SOC) has been rejected on the ground of delay. Admittedly, the revision was filed after a delay of 44 years. The revisional court while rejecting the application for condonation of delay, has found that there is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of 44 years. The petitioner while explaining the delay has asserted that a few days prior to 11.08.2022, a family partition took place between the parties. The parties are real brothers. After this partition, the petitioner started searching for relevant records and became aware of the order dated 21.09.1978. Thereafter the petitioner started claiming Gata No. 1997 in its entirety. However, the claim of the petitioner that the family partition occurred only a few days prior to 11.08.2022 appears to be false on the face of the record. The disputed parcels of land had already been recorded in the names of respective parties in Form 23 which demonstrates that a de facto partition had taken place much prior to the year 2022. Moreover, after the consolidation proceedings concluded, possession of land was handed over pursuant to the orders of the consolidation authorities. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings before the consolidation authorities. The explanation for the delay of 44 years is not satisfactory. There is no infirmity in the findings of the courts below that the claim of the petitioner was barred by delay and laches. In this wake the orders passed by the courts below do not warrant any interference. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Alok Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Paras Nath .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) There is another aspect of the matter. The application filed by the petitioner before the consolidation authority fails to disclose when the road came into existence. This fact is of importance. In a large number of cases many settled issues are sought to be reopened after many decades in view of the new construction of roads under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana. The law of delay and laches has been evolved by the Courts for fair and efficient administration of justice. Long delays seeking to revive stale claims will unsettle matters which have acquired finality over past decades. Consequent to the finality of the order third party rights invariably accrue over the years and it is not in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience to disturb the long settled state of affairs. [Also see: Jalim and others v. State of U.P. and others (Writ-B No.2420 of 2025)] Shri Alok Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jeet Narain and Another vs. Govind Prasad and Others (Civil Appeal No. 1447 of 2010) seeking that fraud vitiates everything. There is no dispute with the aforesaid legal proposition. However, it is not applicable to the facts of the this case, inasmuch as, allegations of fraud must be specifically pleaded with material particulars. Such pleadings are absent before the authorities below and indeed the present writ petition is also deficient in regard to the pleadings of fraud. The writ petition is dismissed. September 16, 2025 Dhananjai WRIB No. 3323 of 2025 2 (Ajay Bhanot,J.) Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad