Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Rameshwar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Mr. Madan Mohan, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dwidendra Prasad, Counsel for respondent No.5, Mr. L.K. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Avinash Chandra Srivastav, Counsel for respondent No.4, Gram Panchayat.
2. The brief facts of the case are that khasra plot No. 266 area 0.191 hectare, situated in village-Chandrapur, Tahsil-Bah, District Agra was recorded as navin parti. An agriculture lease was executed in favour of respondent No.5, Roop Kishore Chaturvedi, S/o Chetan Das, R/O Village- Chandrapur, Tehsil - Bah, District-Agra (U.P.) and the same was approved also on 26.03.1992. Petitioner filed a complaint against the allotment of respondent No.5, which was registered as Case No. 64 of 1995-96, under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, respondent No.5 appeared in the proceedings and filed his reply also but subsequently absented from the proceedings, hence, the case was directed to be proceeded ex-parte. The Additional District Magistrate/ Additional Collector , vide order dated 31.12.1996, cancelled the allotment of respondent No.5. Against the order dated 31.12.1996, responden
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.
The court ruled that procedural delays should be examined contextually, emphasizing the need for justice over strict adherence to timelines, allowing case merits to guide decisions.
A party must demonstrate substantive rights to challenge consolidation orders; inordinate delay in seeking restoration applications without sufficient explanation cannot be condoned.
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.
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 requirement of sufficient cause for condonation of delay is paramount, ensuring that established legal rights are not disturbed without compelling justification.
A formal application for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act is not mandatory if sufficient cause is shown, allowing courts to exercise discretion in restoring cases.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in appeals, advocating a liberal approach while ensuring timely legal action.
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
