Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2919

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Bharat Lal And 3 Others - Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. And 9 Others - Respondents
Writ - B No. - 3762 of 2023
Decided on : 09-11-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Pradeep Singh Sengar, Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent: C.S.C, Pramod Kumar Pandey, Raj Kumar Pandey, Ram Kumar Pal

Condonation of extraordinary delay requires proper explanation; courts must balance substantial justice against accrued rights and ensure genuine reasons are provided.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 12 - Condonation of delay in appeal - Delay of 36 years condoned by Appellate Authority without sufficient explanation - Court reiterates the need for a strict approach to extraordinary delays, emphasizing substantial justice and the preservation of rights accrued through timely acts (Paras 10, 18, 19).

(B) Revision petitions should be decided simultaneously when related - Failure of Revisional Authority to address a critical petition before proceeding with another undermines judicial process.

(C) Legal principles from case law highlighted that sufficient cause for delay must be reasonable and not simply accepted unless bona fide (Paras 10, 18).

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the condonation of an extraordinary delay in appeal against a 1984 decision based on compromise; appeal filed 36 years later without proper explanation.

Findings of Court:
The Court finds that the delay in condonation lacks sufficient and truthful cause, thus reaffirms the importance of evaluating the delay on merit to protect rights from being disturbed unfairly.

Issues: Whether the extraordinary delay of 36 years was rightly condoned, and the obligation of Revisional Authorities to decide cases on merit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court holds that substantial justice must prevail, emphasizing the need for valid explanations of delays to uphold accrued rights (Paras 19, 20).

Result: Impugned order set aside; matter remitted for fresh consideration of both revision petitions.

Table of Content
1. facts of the case involve an extraordinary delay of over 35 years in filing appeals. (Para 1)
2. factual background of the case details. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. details of delays and appeals. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. arguments regarding condonation of delay. (Para 10 , 11)
5. legal standards for condonation of delay. (Para 18 , 19)
6. final order remitting to revisional authority. (Para 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pradeep Singh Sengar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Ram Kumar Pal, learned counsel for respondent No.4

2. Facts of the present case in brief are as follows:

(ii) At a very belated stage, contesting respondents filed an appeal against above referred order dated 24.8.1984, along with an application for condonation of delay.

(iii) The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 9.12.2022 has condoned delay of about three and half decades in filing the appeal.

3. Above referred order was challenged by petitioners by way of filing a revision petition however it was dismissed vide order dated 16.2.2023.

4. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioners preferred a Writ Petition No.1126 of 2023 which was allowed in part vide order dated 26.4.2023, whereby impugned orders therein were set-aside and matter was remitted to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal afresh. Relevant part of the order is mentioned hereinafter:

9. Since, the order has been passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 24.8.1984 on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties and respondent no.4 became major in the year 1988-19 according to the pleadings setup by him but the appeal has been filed by respondent no.4 on 17.3.2020, there is no proper explanation in the application under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT for condonation of delay of 36 years and the appellate Court vide order dated 9.12.2022 has condoned the delay only by saying that the order is without jurisdiction, hence order requires consideration. The operative portion of the appellate order runs as follows:

10. There is no proper consideration by the appellate Court for condoning the delay of 36 years. The law is settled that there can be liberal view with respect to the sufficiency of cause but in respect to the reality of cause, there can be no liberal view, as such, respondent no.4 has to give proper explanation of 36 years as the right has been created in favour of person in whose favour the order was passed and subsequently the property has been sold out to other persons.

11. The case law of Hon'ble Apex Court as cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in Balwant Singh (supra) is relevant for the instant matter, paragraph no.13 of the judgment is as under:-

"13. As held by this Court in the case of Mithailal Dalsangar Singh (AIR 2003 SC 4244: 2003 AIR SCW 4878) (supra)the abatement results in denial of hearing on the merits of the case, the provision of abatement has to be construed strictly. On the other hand, the prayer for setting aside an