Back
DINESH PATHAK
Lal Chandra – Appellant
Versus
State Of UP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
2. Instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :-
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents not to dispossess he petitioner from the land in dispute in which he is in possession.”
3. Details of the impugned orders, as assailed in the instant writ petition, are given below :dismissed by the D.D.C. on the ground that the said order has already attained finality by the order dated 12.12.1996 passed by the High Court in Writ-B No.13516 of 1981.
| Order Date | Details |
| 26.09.1981 | Passed by the D.D.C. in Revision No.734/2438. |
| 24.05.2010 (incorrectly mentioned as 28.05.2010 in writ petition) | Passed by the Consolidation Officer in proceeding under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules. |
| 12.01.2011 | Restoration application dated 30.07.2010 filed on behalf of the peti |
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 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 law of limitation must be strictly applied, and delay in filing petitions cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, especially in cases of negligence.
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.
A formal application for condonation of delay is not necessary; oral requests sufficing with sufficient cause are valid in proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
The court ruled that a liberal approach cannot override statutory limitations, emphasizing the need for a satisfactory explanation for delays in filing appeals.
A formal application for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act is not mandatory if sufficient cause is shown, allowing courts to exercise discretion in restoring cases.
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
