IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Ram Saran and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue and ors. - Respondents
WRIT B NO. 162 OF 2024.
Decided On : 15-02-2024
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard.
2. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.
3. By means of the present petition the petitioners have assailed the order dated 19.01.2011, 15.05.2013 and 22.05.2023 passed by opposite party no.3, 2 and 1 respectively, as appears from the main relief sought in the present petition, which reads as under:
4. The record indicates that a case no. 48/73/10-11 (State v. Jwala Prasad), under Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (in short 'Act of 1950'), was instituted with regard to Gata No. 454/0-379 hectare situated in Village Mishrapur, Pargana Mahona, Tehsil Bakshi-Ka-Talab, District Lucknow.
5. Section 166 of the Act of 1950, says that the transfer made in contravention of the Act to be void and Section 167 of the Act of 1950, provides consequence of void transfer and as per this provision the subject matter of transfer including the trees, crop and wells, existing on land shall with effect from the date of transfer, be deemed to have vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances.
6. From order dated 19.01.2011 passed by the opposite party no.3/Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector, First Class Bakshi-Ka-Talab, District Lucknow and the Annexure No. 7 to the present petition, it appears that notices were issued to the concerned, but no one contested the case.
7. The order dated 19.01.2011 indicates that the land in issue, was sold without seeking permission/approval of Assistant Collector in terms of Section 157 AA of the Act of 1950. It is in view of the fact that vendor was of Scheduled Caste category and land in issue, was sold to a person of unreserved category by an unregistered deed, as per which possession of the land was provided to purchaser, and in this view of the matter the permission/approval was required in terms of Section 157 AA of the Act of 1950.
8. The order dated 19.01.2011 provides that the land transferred be recorded in the name of State Government.
9. It would be apt to indicate that as per the case of the petitioners the 'Patta' of land in issue, was provided to Ram Jiyavan and after his death, in the revenue records related to land in issue the name of his two sons namely Jwala Prasad and Jagmohan were entered.
10. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2011 an appeal was filed by Jwala Prasad son of Ram Jiyavan and Ravi son of Jagmohan.
11. The aforesaid appeal was registered as Appeal No. 44/2011-12 (Jwala Prasad and Others v. Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector First, Bakshi-Ka-Talab, District Lucknow and another) under Section 331 of the Act of 1950. This appeal was dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2013.
12. After dismissal of first appeal vide order dated 15.05.2013, Ramsaran son of Jwala Prasad and Ravi son of Jagmohan filed the second appeal in the month of July 2019 alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay, duly supported with an affidavit. It would be apt to indicate relevant paragraphs of the affidavit, filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, which are as under:-
^^2- ;g fd 'kiFkh ds firk Tokyk izlkn gh okn mijksDr dh iSjoh djrs Fks ftudh e`R;q gks xbZ gS vkSj jktLo [krkSuh
B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy
Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Bhivchandra Shankar More v. Balu Gangaram More
Brijesh Kumar v. State of Haryana
Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy
General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corpn. Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim
Mahant Bikram Dass Chela v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab
N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy
P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in appeals, advocating a liberal approach while ensuring timely legal action.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in appeals, advocating a liberal approach while also requiring satisfactory explanations for excessive delays.
The court emphasized that the approach to condonation of delay should be liberal and justice-oriented, focusing on the explanation provided rather than the mere length of delay.
(1) – Limitation period – Length of delay is a relevant matter which court must take into consideration while considering whether delay should be condoned or not – While considering plea for condona....
The court held that for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the party must demonstrate sufficient cause, with mere negligence or vague explanations failing to meet this burden.
The court emphasized that applications for condonation of delay should be decided on merits, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities, especially when the delay is not due to negligence.
Though the Courts are required to weigh scale of balance of justice in respect of both the parties, the said principle cannot be given a total good-bye in the name of liberal approach.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.