IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that substantial justice prevails over technicalities in delay condonation, requiring sufficient cause to be shown for delays in appeals.

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 deed said to have been executed by Kanhaiya Lal. The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 30.7.1970, has allowed the objection under Section 9A(2) of UPCH Act and passed an order to record the name of Aangad Rai & others in place of recorded tenure holders. At belated stage, after the death of Kanhaiya Lal, an appeal dated 21.07.1982 has been preferred on behalf of his son, namely, Sanjay Kumar (minor) under the guardianship of his mother Smt. Prema Devi wife of Kanhaiya Lal. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order dated 15.11.1989, has condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, simultaneously, allowed the appeal on merits whereby the parties were relegated before the Consolidation Officer to get the matter decided afresh. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of the Angad Rai, has reversed the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and relegated the parties, at the appellate stage to decide the point of delay first caused in filing the appeal, before deciding its merits. In pursuance of the remand order dated 5.6.1999 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the matter has been scrutinized on the point of delay, as such, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order dated 28.9.2002, has condoned the delay in filing the appeal on the cost of Rs. 100/-. Having been aggrieved with the order dated 28.9.2002 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Subhash Kumar (respondent No. 4) and others have preferred revision. The Deputy Director of Consolation, vide order dated 27.3.2003, has allowed the revision and quashed the delay condonation order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which gives rise a cause of action for filing the instant writ petition.

4. Solitary point involved in the instant writ petition relates to the condonation of delay caused in filing the appeal dated 21.7.1982 assailing the order dated 30.7.1970 passed by the Consolidation Officer in proceeding under Section 9A(2) of UPCH Act. As per the ground taken by the petitioner in appeal dated 21.7.2022 (annexure No. 5), he/she came to know for the first time through rumour in the village on 19.7.1982 qua order passed by the consolidation court, therefore, inspected the record on 20.7.1982. Petitioner came with a specific case that before that neither the appellant (petitioner No. 1 herein) nor his father had ever come to know about the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. It is apposite to mention that father of the petitioner No. 1 had died on 25.4.1982 and, after his death, the appeal was filed on 21.7.1982. The petitioner has denied any service of notice upon Kanhaiya Lal and also denied the filing of Vakalatnama on his behalf. Learned counsel for the petitioner has attemted to br