Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 1891

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Rajesh Chaudhary - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 Others - Respondents
WRIT C NO. 44668 OF 2023.
Decided On : 04-01-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ashok Kumar Dwivedi Advocate.
For the Respondents: C.S.C., Amit Kumar.

The court emphasized that delays in filing appeals should be condoned to ensure substantial justice, overriding technical limitations.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 67(1), 67(5), and 214 - Writ petition challenging ejectment order and dismissal of appeal on limitation grounds - Court emphasized the need for a liberal approach in condoning delays to ensure justice is served - The appellate order was set aside, allowing the petitioner to appeal on merits. (Paras 11, 15, 16)

(B) Limitation - The court reiterated that technical grounds should not prevent the pursuit of substantial justice, referencing the principle that appeals should not be dismissed solely on procedural delays. (Paras 12, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced ejectment proceedings initiated by the Tehsildar under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, with the appeal dismissed due to a three-year delay.

Findings of Court:
The appellate order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision on the appeal, considering the delay condonation.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the ejectment order and the appropriateness of dismissing the appeal on limitation grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the delay in filing the appeal should be considered in light of the need for substantial justice, emphasizing that procedural technicalities should not obstruct justice.

Result: Writ petition allowed in part; appellate order set aside.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.4/Gaon Sabha, Mr. Shridhar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate, who has filed caveat on behalf of Gangaram Gupta, although Gangaram Gupta has not been impleaded in the writ petition.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the instant petition is being heard and disposed of finally without inviting counter affidavit.

4. Brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Section 67 (1) of U.P Revenue Code 2006 was initiated against the petitioner in respect to plot No.333 M area 0.047 hectare and order for ejectment and damages has been passed on 18.05.2018 by Tehsildar. Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 along with the prayer for condonation of delay of about 3 years which has been dismissed on the ground of limitation hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order for ejectment and damages has been passed against the petitioner in the proceeding under Section 67 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by the Tehsildar in ex-parte as well as arbitrary manner. He submitted that petitioner filed an appeal under Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 along with prayer for condonation of delay before the Collector which has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. He further submitted that case of the petitioner has not been examined on merit by the Tehsildar or by collector in appeal in accordance with law. He further submitted that petitioner is in possession over the plot in question since long which was reserved for general abadi during consolidation operation. He further submitted that proceedings under Section 67 are not maintainable, as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that similar controversy against the order passed by Tehsildar has been entertained by this Court in Writ C No. 43359 of 2023 in which interim protection for maintaining status quo has been granted.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha, Mr. Shridhar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the caveator submitted that land in dispute is not reserved for general abadi. They further submitted that proceeding has been rightly initiated and the order for ejectment has been rightly passed against the petitioner. They further submitted that petitioner has not initiated any proceeding for restoration before the Tehsildar if the order is ex-parte, as such in view of the provision contained under Section 209(h) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 the appeal is not maintainable against the ex parte order. They further submitted that no interference is required in the matter against the impugned orders. They further submitted that appeal was highly time barred, as such the appellate court has been rightly dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation. They next submitted that appeal was barred by about 3 years and there was no proper explanation for condonation of delay in a