Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Rama Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of UP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Heard Mr. Shamim Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sheetla Sahai Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.5, Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent no.4-Gaon Sabha and Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act) was initiated by respondent nos.5 & 6, which was registered as Case No.366/584, under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act before Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Fatehpur. The aforementioned proceeding was dismissed for non-prosecution on 28.6.2017. Against the order dated 28.6.2017, an application for recall/restoration application along with the prayer for delay condonation has been filed by respondent nos.5 & 6 on 8.3.2018. The aforementioned restoration application dated 8.3.2018 was dismissed on the ground of limitation by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 2.12.2022. Against the order dated 2.12.2022, revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act was filed before Deputy Director of Consolidation by respondent nos.5 & 6.
The court emphasized that proceedings should be decided on merits rather than technical grounds, advocating for a liberal approach to delay condonation.
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 court emphasized that substantial justice prevails over technicalities in delay condonation, requiring sufficient cause to be shown for delays in appeals.
Procedural dismissals do not prevent merits of subsequent appeals, ensuring timely consideration based on applicable laws.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation's remand for a fresh hearing was justified to ensure fairness, given the significant delay and procedural irregularities in prior decisions.
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 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 maintainability of revisions must be assessed before summoning records, and original records are essential for deciding revisions under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
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
