Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Jaspreet Singh, J.
Shatrohan and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The Settlement Officer Consoliadtion Lko. and Others – Respondents
Writ - B No. - 357 of 2022
Decided On : 03-06-2022
Recall - Order of Interim Relief - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, Section 12 - The court discussed the validity of the order dated 22.04.2022 granting interim relief and its subsequent recall by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The court referred to the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, particularly Section 12, and highlighted the legal principle that an appeal accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not grant the authority jurisdiction to pass orders on the merits without condoning the delay. The court cited the decision in the case of Ram Prakash Vs. Director of Consolidation and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online (Alld.) 107 to support its view. The court concluded that the recall of the interim order was appropriate given that the initial order was without jurisdiction and passed in ignorance of the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the recall of an ex-parte order granting interim relief by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which was issued without hearing the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the initial order granting interim relief was not within the jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, as it was passed without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The court also found that the recall of the interim order was appropriate, given that the initial order was without jurisdiction and passed in ignorance of the law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the initial order granting interim relief, the jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to pass orders on the merits without condoning the delay, and the appropriateness of the recall of the interim order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an appeal accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not grant the authority jurisdiction to pass orders on the merits without condoning the delay. The court also emphasized that an order without jurisdiction and passed in ignorance of the law could be recalled once brought to the notice of the authority.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and the court directed the parties to appear before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to file their objections, both on the application for condonation of delay and on the merits of the appeal. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation was directed to consider and decide the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act first and, if found successful, proceed to decide the appeal on merits.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behal of respondent no. 1 has been accepted by the office of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Atharva Arya and Sri Avinash Tiwari, learned counsel have put in appearance on caveat on behalf of respondent no. 2.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit after serving a copy on the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and the same is taken on record.
3. Under challenge is the order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Lucknow whereby it has recalled the ex-parte order granting an interim order dated 22.04.2022 earlier passed by him fixing 10.06.2022 for hearing of the appeal.
4. In order to put the matter in perspective, the facts as emerging from the record is that predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners had executed a power of attorney in favour of private respondent no. 3 for the purposes of executing a sale deed in favour of Sri Vivek Sahai in whose favour the predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners had executed an agreement to sell dated 26.08.1993. The said power of attorneys have been brought on record along with the supplementary affidavit filed today.
5. The record further indicates that the said power of attorney holder i.e. private respondent no. 3 in the year 1994 executed a sale deeds in favour of the private respondent no. 2. The village in question where the property is situate came under consolidation operations and an order dated 22.05.1995 came to be passed in exercise of the powers under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
6. It is being aggrieved against the ex-parte order dated 22.05.1995 that the petitioners preferred an appeal before the SOC as late as in the month of April, 2022. The said appeal was accompanied by an application seeking interim relief as well as seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
7. It is on the said appeal that the SOC concerned by means of order dated 22.04.2022 passed an interim order which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 4. The SOC while passing the said order observed that the order dated 22.05.2022 appears to be suspicious and in order to protect the property in question, it directed the parties to maintain status-quo and not to alienate the same at the same time issued notices to the respondents in the appeal.
8. The private respondents no. 2 herein who was the respondent in the appeal appeared before the SOC and on 27.05.2022 moved an application seeking recall of the order dated 22.04.2022 primarily on the ground that since the appeal had been preferred with much delay, it was not open for the SOC to have passed the interim order even without noticing the respondents and condoning the delay. The SOC realizing the same by means of order dated 27.05.2022 recalled the order dated 22.04.2022 and the present petitioners being aggrieved have assailed the same before this Court.
9. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was not open for the SOC to have recalled the order especially at the behest of the private respondents without hearing the petitioners.
10. It is urged that once an order had been passed, the least requirement was that the petitioners ought to have been granted time to respond to the application preferred by the private respondents seeking vacation of the stay order dated 24.02.2022 and only after affording an opportunity of hearing, the orders could have been passed but the manner in which the order dated 24.02.2022 has been recalled is not in sound exercise of discretion or jurisdiction exercised by the respondent no. 1.
11. A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the delay in filing the appeal had been condoned, the answer to which was in the negative.
12. The issue before this Court at this stage is whether the order which has bee
The court emphasized the necessity of fair representation and substantiated reasoning in administrative decisions, especially when property rights are at stake.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must address condonation of delay before considering case merits, as established in precedent.
The sufficiency of cause must be the focus in applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, not previous conduct or merits of prior orders.
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
