Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Rajdhani - Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Director of Consolidation And Others - Respondent
WRIT B NO. 11360 OF 1983.
Decided On : 07-12-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details on the initial delay and objections (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 2. arguments about filing objections and condonation (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. court's analysis on the condonation of delay (Para 25 , 29 , 33) |
| 4. principles for condonation of delay (Para 28) |
| 5. impugned order's unsustainability and direction to consider objections. (Para 30) |
| 6. final conclusion and directions (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No. 9/2023
Heard.
2. Cause shown is sufficient.
3. Delay Condonation Application is allowed.
Order on Substitution Application No. 10/2023
4. Heard.
5. Substitution Application is allowed.
6. Let substitution be carried out during course of day.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No. 11/2023
7. Heard.
8. Cause shown is sufficient.
9. Delay Condonation Application is allowed.
Order on Substitution Application No. 12/2023
10. Heard.
11. Substitution Application is allowed.
12. Let substitution be carried out during course of day.
Order on Substitution Application No. 35251/2002
13. Heard.
14. Substitution Application is allowed.
15. Let substitution be carried out during course of day.
Order in Writ B No. 11360/1983 and Writ B No. 5117/1983
16. Both writ petitions are pending since 1983. However, issue involved therein is very limited.
17. The facts of present case in brief are that in the concerned village, during consolidation proceedings, a notification under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short "Act of 1953") was published on 30.11.1975. The petitioner has filed objections on 25.12.1975 i.e. with a delay of two days since limitation as provided under Section 9 of the Act of 1953 is 21 days.
18. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 26.06.1976 condoned the delay of two days with a cost of Rs. 10/-.
19. The respondents herein have challenged the above order of Consolidation Officer before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad. The Revisional Authority by impugned order dated 19.07.1977 allowed the revision petition mainly on two grounds, first, that no objections were filed by petitioner as required under the provisions of Act of 1953 before Assistant Consolidation Officer as well as that delay of two days could not be condoned since petitioner herein was well aware about notification issued under Section 9 of the Act of 1953.
20. Sri Prem Shankar Kushwaha, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ No. 11360/1988 submits that Revisional Authority has taken a hyper technical and strict approach though in such cases where delay is of very short i.e. 2 days in present case, the approach ought to have been liberal and in support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others , (2013) 12 SCC 649 .
21. Sri Vishnu Singh, learned counsel for respondents submits that there was no dispute between the parties at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, therefore, no objections were filed by petitioner. The objections were filed directly before Consolidation Officer at the first instance and has by-passed mandatory provision as provided under Section 9 and 9A of the Act of 1953. However, he fairly submits that delay of two days could be condoned.
22. He further submits that subsequently, fresh objections were filed on behalf of other person viz., Bhuwari, however, objection to it was dismissed with an observation that all contentions could be raised on merit at the time of final hearing. Said order dated 18.11.1981 was challenged at the instance of respondents before Revisional Authority which was dismissed by an order dated 05.01.1983. Said order is impugned in connected writ petition being Writ B No. 5117/1983.
23. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
24. As referred above, there are two issues before this Court for consideration, firstly, whether in facts and circumstances of th
A liberal approach should be taken in condoning short delays in legal proceedings, prioritizing substantial justice over technical restrictions.
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....
Point of Law : It is only after that application is allowed, appeal can be entertained and heard on merits.
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 court emphasized that substantial justice prevails over technicalities in delay condonation, requiring sufficient cause to be shown for delays in appeals.
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 law of limitation must be strictly applied, and delay in filing petitions cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, especially in cases of negligence.
Inordinate delay in filing an appeal must be adequately explained; failure to do so results in dismissal of the petition.
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
