Back
DINESH PATHAK
Ramjas – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Dinesh Pathak, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the records.
2. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition at a very belated stage on 22.07.2024 assailing the order dated 16.08.1995 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no.1) in Revision No.304 under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
3. Facts culled out from the record are that in basic consolidation record, land in question i.e. Plot No.830/1Sa was recorded in the name of Gram Sabha. One Murali has filed an objection against the Gram Sabha under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act claiming his right, title and interest over Plot No.830/1 Sa measuring area 4 Biswa 11 Dhoor, on the basis of possession since before the date of vesting (U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950). Having considered the merits of the case, Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 10.04.1975, has allowed the objection filed on behalf of Murali. Having been aggrieved with the order dated 10.04.1975, Ramjas (petitioner herein) has preferred revision at a very belated stage in the year 1995. Deputy Director of Consolidation, v
The law of limitation must be strictly applied, and delay in filing petitions cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, especially in cases of negligence.
A party must demonstrate substantive rights to challenge consolidation orders; inordinate delay in seeking restoration applications without sufficient explanation cannot be condoned.
The court emphasized that substantial justice prevails over technicalities in delay condonation, requiring sufficient cause to be shown for delays in appeals.
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 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 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 necessitates prompt legal action; extraordinary delays in appeals require compelling reasons for condonation, which were not present in this case.
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....
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
