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.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

1. Heard.

2. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondents 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:

“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment & order dated 22.5.2023 passed by opposite party No. 1, dismissing Second Appeal No. SA/1595/2019-Lko and Computer Case No. R20191046001595 Ram Saran vs. Additional Commissioner Judicial Lucknow Division Lucknow; contained in Annexure No. 1 and the judgment and order dated 15.5.2013 passed by the opposite party no. dismissing Appeal No. 44/2011-2012 Jwala Prasad vs. Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector First Class; BKT Lucknow and others; contained in Annexure No. 2 & the judgment & other dated 19.1.2011 passed by the opposite party no. 3 in Case No. 48/73/10-11 u/s 166/167 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act State Vs. Jwala; contained in Annexure No. 3.”

4. The record indicates that a Case No. 48/73/10-11 (State vs. 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 vs. 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:

13. The second appeal was dismissed, after taking note of the issue of limitation vide impugned order dated 22.05.2023. The operative