The court emphasized that proceedings should be decided on merits rather than technical grounds, advocating for a liberal approach to delay condonation.

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 aforementioned revision was heard and decided vide order dated 31.1.2024 setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 2.12.2022 and remanded the matter back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the restoration application dated 8.3.2018 taking liberal view on the delay condonation matter, hence this writ petition challenging the order dated 31.1.2024 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Judicial)/Deputy Director of Consolidation), Fatehpur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent nos.5 & 6 has filed the application under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed in her favour on 18.8.2006. He further submitted that the application under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act filed by respondent nos.5 & 6 was dismissed for non-prosecution in the year 2017. He next submitted that the sale deed dated 18.8.2006 has been challenged by the petitioner in the civil Court and civil suit is pending. He also submitted that the aforementioned proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act was dismissed for non-prosecution and the time barred restoration application filed by respondent no.5 has been rightly rejected on the ground of limitation but revisional Court has exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside the order passed by Consolidation Officer rejecting the restoration application on the ground of limitation. He further submitted that respondent nos.5 & 6 have transferred the property in dispute in favour of respondent no.7, as such, respondent no.5 cannot be permitted to pursue the proceeding. He next submitted that the impugned revisional order is liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Sheetla Sahai Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.5 submitted that the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act has been dismissed for non-prosecution and restoration application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. He further submitted that the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act, which was initiated on behalf of respondent nos.5 & 6 on the basis of sale deed executed in her favour is to be decided on merit rather on technical grounds. He next submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly exercised his revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act in setting aside the order dismissing the restoration application and directing the Consolidation Officer to decide the restoration application afresh taking liberal view of the delay condonation matter. He lastly submitted that no interference is required in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the p