Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Ram Keval – Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Bahraich And Others – Respondents
WRIT -B No. -24 of 2024
Decided On : 10-01-2024
DELAY CONDONATION - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9A(2) - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9A(2), Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 48, Registration Act, 1908 - Section 47, Transfer of Property Act, 1984 - Section 54 - The court discussed the principles related to execution and registration of sale deed, the priority of rights created by transfer, and the operation of a registered document from a certain date.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition challenging the order condoning the delay in filing an objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The petitioner's claim was based on a subsequent sale deed dated 04.07.1998, while an earlier sale deed dated 23.06.1984 in favor of the opposite party was still in existence. The suit for cancellation of the earlier sale deed was pending before the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Consolidation Officer rightly exercised its power and condoned the delay, and the observations made in the impugned orders were just and proper. The court concluded that the matter was liable to be decided on merits, and no interference was required in the impugned orders.
Issues: The issues involved the condonation of delay in filing an objection under Section 9A(2) of the Act, the priority of rights created by transfer, and the operation of a registered document from a certain date.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the discretion in condoning the delay should be exercised in favor of hearing and not to shut out hearing. It emphasized the need for a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with applications for condonation of delay. The court also discussed the principles related to execution and registration of sale deed, the priority of rights created by transfer, and the operation of a registered document from a certain date.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court held that no interference was required in the impugned orders.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Ram Vishal Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the Caveator and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel.
2. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.
3. The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-
II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the opposite parties may not create any hindrance in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question."
4. By means of the present petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the opposite party no.2/Consolidation Officer-III, Sadar, District Bahraich in Case No. 202354081546030324 (Jawala Prasad Versus Ram Kewal, whereby the opposite party no.2 has condoned the delay in filing the Objection under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'Act of 1953'). The operative portion of the same reads as under:-
5. A challenge has also been made to the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the opposite party no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich (in short 'DDC'), whereby the opposite party no.1 dismissed the two revisions i.e. Revision No. 0368/2023, Computerized Case No. 202354081500000368 (Shyam and Others Versus Jawala Prasad and Others) and Revision No. 0369/2023, Computerized Case No. 202354081500000369 (Ram Kewal Versus Jawala Prasad and Others) and up held the order of opposite party no.2 passed on 12.07.2023. The relevant portion of the order dated 27.10.2023 reads as under:-
6. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that Smt. Chandrakala w/o Sri Brij Lal and Sri Sanehi s/o Pyare, executed a registered sale deed on 23.06.1984 in favour of Jawala Prasad/opposite party no.3 and thereafter thereafter Smt. Chandrakala also executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner/Ram Kewal on 04.07.1998.
7. Smt. Chandrakala also instituted a suit for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 23.06.1984 i.e. Suit No. 217/1987 and this suit was decreed ex-parte on 13.08.1987 and thereafter on an application for restoration of final order dated 13.08.1987 was moved and the said restoration application was allowed and the judgment and order dated 13.08.1987 was recalled and the suit for cancellation of registered sale deed is pending before the competent court of jurisdiction till date and from the averments made in the present petition it is apparent that this fact has not been denied. The effect of pendency of the suit would be that registered sale deed dated 23.06.1984 is still in-existence.
8. The opposite party no.3 on 24.09.2014 on coming to know about the fact that in the revenue records the name(s) Sanehi and Ram Keval (petitioner) have been shown, that he contacted an Advocate on 25.09.2014 and thereafter preferred an objection under Section 9A(2) of the Act of 1953 along with an application for condonation of delay on 26.09.2014.
9. The contents of the application for condonation of delay being relevant is extracted herein under :-
10. It is not in dispute that the objection under Section 9A(2) of the Act of 1953 was filed prior to publication of notification under Section 52 of the Act of 1953, which was published on 9.10.2018.
11. In response an objection dated 20.09.2017 was filed, which is extracted herein under:-
12. It is apparent from the objection dated 20.09.2017, quoted above, that it is completely vague as in the same to establish the facts that opposite party no. 3 was having knowledge of the consolidation proceedings related to Gata in issue i.e. Gata
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the discretion in condoning the delay should be exercised in favor of hearing and not to shut out hearing. The court emphasized the need for a....
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.
The court emphasized that the approach to condonation of delay should be liberal and justice-oriented, focusing on the explanation provided rather than the mere length of delay.
Timely filing of appeals is essential, and adequate justification for delays must be shown; failure to do so results in dismissal of the petition for condonation.
The court emphasized that delay in filing a restoration application undermines the right to challenge prior orders, reinforcing the principle that the law of limitation must be strictly applied.
Point of law: Once court accepts explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisiiona....
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
