Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Jumayee – Appellant
Versus
D. D. C. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition restoration and delay condonation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background on initial consolidation proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. deliberation on rule 25-a compliance. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 18) |
| 4. court's reasoning on mandatory provisions of rule 25-a. (Para 19 , 21) |
| 5. this group touches on the legal discussions of whether rule 25-a was violated. (Para 20) |
| 6. this group discusses the mandatory nature of complying with established procedural rules. (Para 25) |
| 7. final dismissal of writ petition. (Para 27 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Taking note of the facts stated in the affidavit(s) filed in support of application(s) (C.M.Application Nos. 56980 of 2016 and 56981 of 2016), the same are allowed. The delay in filing the application for recall is hereby condoned. The order dated 3.11.2015 dismissing the writ petition in default is hereby recalled and the petition is restored to its original number.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State.
2. By means of this petition, petitioner has assailed the order dated 13.1.1994 passed by respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh (in shor
The court reaffirmed that procedural compliance under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is mandatory, and non-adherence, especially concerning the recording of compromises, nullifies the authori....
The court emphasized that substantial justice prevails over technicalities in delay condonation, requiring sufficient cause to be shown for delays in appeals.
The court emphasized that negligence or inaction by a litigant or their counsel cannot justify the condonation of delay in filing applications, reinforcing the need for diligence in legal proceedings....
A party must demonstrate substantive rights to challenge consolidation orders; inordinate delay in seeking restoration applications without sufficient explanation cannot be condoned.
The law of limitation must be strictly applied, and delay in filing petitions cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, especially in cases of negligence.
Point of Law : It is only after that application is allowed, appeal can be entertained and heard on merits.
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.
Condonation of extraordinary delay requires proper explanation; courts must balance substantial justice against accrued rights and ensure genuine reasons are provided.
The court emphasized that extraordinary delays in appeal require strict scrutiny, asserting that sufficient cause must be demonstrated to justify condonation, balancing justice with the rights accrue....
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.
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
