Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
Savitri Devi & Another - Petitioners
Versus
Addl. Commissioner, Judicial Ii, Lko & Others - Respondents
Misc. Single No. 11021 of 2021
Decided On : 26-05-2021
U.P. Land Revenue Act - Section 33/39 Limitation Act - Section 5 - possession over the said land - registered sale deed – Mutation - Whether or not there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay is a question of fact dependent upon facts and circumstances of the particular case - Petitioners had purchased land by way of registered sale from one Mahant Vishan Das and came into possession over said land. Petitioner’s application for mutation under Section 33/39 U.P. Land Revenue Act was allowed by Tehsildar by order against which opposite party No.4 filed appeal which was allowed by order by Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Petitioners preferred Revision which was dismissed for non-prosecution by order against which petitioners filed an application for setting aside of order along with an application for condonation of delay, which has been rejected by the order under challenge in this petition.
Finding of the court: Order under challenge deserves to be quashed, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and matter deserves to be remitted to Additional Commissioner for decision afresh on the petitioners' application for condonation of delay - Additional Commissioner (Judicial) in passing order under challenge, rejecting the petitioners' application for condonation of delay and consequent thereupon in rejecting application for setting aside the order has committed illegality. The cause shown in the application should have been considered and on such consideration, keeping in view settled law on condonation of delay after recording specific finding if cause shown was or was not sufficient, the applications should have been decided.
Result: Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Hari Om Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Raj Bux Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 through video conferencing and perused the record.
2. For the order proposed to be passed issuance of notice to opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 is hereby dispensed with.
3. The petitioner has filed this petition for following reliefs:
2. To issue a Writ, direction, or order in the nature of Mandamus directing the Additional Commissioner Judicial IInd Lucknow Region Lucknow to decide the Revision No. 967/2002-03, Savitri Devi and Another Vs. Dr. Ram Nrayan Verma pending before him on merit.
3. To issue any such other writ, direction, or order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners had purchased land of Gata No. 92 area 0.089 situated in village Mahmudabad Tehsil Mahmudabad, District Sitapur by way of the registered sale deed dated 19.09.1991 and 17.08.1991 from one Mahant Vishan Das and came into possession over the said land. The petitioners application for mutation under Section 33/39 U.P. Land Revenue Act was allowed by the Tehsildar by order dated 21.10.1994, against which the opposite party No.4 filed appeal No. 341/181, which was allowed by order dated 23.10.2002 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The petitioners preferred Revision No. 967/02-03: Savitri Devi and others Versus Dr. Ram Narayan Verma, which was dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 14.09.2010, against which the petitioners filed an application for setting aside of the order dated 14.09.2010, on 29.03.2019 along with an application for condonation of delay, which has been rejected by the order dated 05.04.2021, under challenge in this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 05.04.2021 has been passed on the ground that there is delay of about eight years in filing of recall application, but the day-to-day delay has not been explained by giving any satisfactory explanation.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have explained the cause, on account of which the delay occurred, which should have been considered liberally in favour of condonation of delay. The petitioners are poor village ladies and they were assured by their counsel that when the revision was listed for hearing after receipt of the lower court record, he would inform, but as they did not receive any information the petitioners could not appear. He submits that the courts should endeavour to decide the lis on merits, instead of rejection on the ground of limitation. The impugned order is also non-speaking as the cause shown by the petitioners for condonation of delay has not been considered.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Versus Ahmed Jaan reported in (2008) 14 SCC 582 in support of his submission.
8. Sri Raj Bux Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that as there is inordinate delay of eight years in filing the application for setting aside the order, the Additional Commissioner rightly rejected the application for recall and for condonation of delay.
9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
10. The proof by sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of extraordinary discretion vested in the Court. What constitutes sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard-and-fast rules, but the discretion given by the Section 5 of the Limitation Act, should not be defined or crystallized, so as to convert a
Application for mutation – Condonation of delay - The term "sufficient cause" is to receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice, when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the grounds for delay condonation and the liberal approach to adjudicate an issue on its merits.
Though the Courts are required to weigh scale of balance of justice in respect of both the parties, the said principle cannot be given a total good-bye in the name of liberal approach.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in appeals, advocating a liberal approach while also requiring satisfactory explanations for excessive delays.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in appeals, advocating a liberal approach while ensuring timely legal action.
Limitation - Condonation of delay - Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when statute so prescribe and Courts have no power to extend p....
The court emphasized that applications for condonation of delay should be decided on merits, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities, especially when the delay is not due to negligence.
A formal application for condonation of delay is not necessary; oral requests sufficing with sufficient cause are valid in proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
The court established that a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' is essential to uphold the principles of substantial justice in delay condonation applications.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
