Back
DINESH PATHAK
Sanjay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Pathak, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on board.
2. Aggrieved with the order dated 27.3.2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 2015530149000043 under section 48(1) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1950 (in brevity ‘UPCH Act’), reversing the order dated 28.9.2002 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in appeal No. 438 under section 11(1) of UPCH Act whereby delay caused in filing the appeal has been condoned on the cost of Rs. 100/-and date is fixed for hearing the appeal on merits, petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it is manifested that instant writ petition has arisen from delay condonation in filing the appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. In basic consolidation record, names of Kanhaiya Lal and Shiv Prasad (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) were recorded. One Angad Rai (father of respondent No. 4) has filed an objection under Section 9A(2) of UPCH Act claiming his right and title over the property in question on the basis of sale de
The court emphasized that substantial justice prevails over technicalities in delay condonation, requiring sufficient cause to be shown for delays in appeals.
Point of Law : It is well settled proposition of law that existence of sufficient cause is sine quo non, for condonation of delay. In absence of being any finding that cause shown is sufficient delay....
The law of limitation must be strictly applied, and delay in filing petitions cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, especially in cases of negligence.
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 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....
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.
A party must demonstrate substantive rights to challenge consolidation orders; inordinate delay in seeking restoration applications without sufficient explanation cannot be condoned.
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....
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
