Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 3020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.
Dina Nath Singh And Another - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others - Respondent
WRIT - C No. - 22221 of 2025
Decided On : 25-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Nikhil Kumar,Vagish Yadav
For the Respondent: C.S.C.,Rakesh Singh

The appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to decide a time-barred appeal on merits without first condoning the delay as required by law.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 24(4) - Admission of a time-barred appeal without condoning delay - The appellate authority admitted and decided on a time-barred appeal without addressing the question of limitation, which undermines its jurisdiction to hear the case. (Paras 26, 32, 52)

(B) Limitation - Importance of condoning delay - The court emphasized that a time-barred appeal cannot be considered valid unless the delay is expressly condoned; failure to do so results in a jurisdictional error. (Paras 32, 56)

(C) Legal mandate - Necessity of due process in appeal proceedings - The court stated that dealing with limitation is a legal requirement that must take precedence over deciding an appeal on merits regardless of the urgency or directives from higher courts. (Paras 36, 51).

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the decision of the appellate court that allowed an appeal filed more than ten months late without condoning the delay as prescribed under the U.P. Revenue Code.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the appellate authority's failure to condone the delay rendered the decision to hear the appeal without jurisdiction, thus setting aside the impugned order.

Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the appellate court could decide a time-barred appeal without addressing the issue of limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate authority erred by considering the merits of a time-barred appeal without first condoning the delay, which is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.

Result: The impugned order dated 17.05.2025 is set aside and remitted to the appellate authority for proper consideration of limitation.

Table of Content
1. court hears arguments from counsel. (Para 1 , 2)
2. case history leading to the appeal. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15)
3. petitioners argue against the merits of the appeal. (Para 16 , 17 , 19 , 20)
4. respondents defend the appellate decision. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
5. lack of jurisdiction without condoning delay. (Para 26 , 32 , 35 , 52)
6. writ petition allowed; matter remitted for reconsideration. (Para 56 , 57)

JUDGMENT :

Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.

1. Heard, Sri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Nandlal Maurya, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Rakesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5.

2. The core dispute involved in the present writ petition is purely legal one that as to whether the appellate Court, without adverting to the question of Limitation as prescribed under section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, could have admitted and allowed the time-barred appeal vide order dated 26.04.2023 and the impugned order dated 17.05.2025 respectively. This Court with the consent of the learned counsels representing their respective parties; proceeds to decide the present writ petition finally at the stage of admission itself, without inviting counter affidavit.

3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 17.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Judicial (Second), Varanasi Division, Varanasi (respondent no.3) in Case No. 771 of 2023 (Upendra Nath Singh versus Dina Singh & others), under Section 24 (4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

4. The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the material available before this Court is that the petitioner’s father filed an Application dated 01.09.2017 under Section 20 /24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, before the Deputy Collector (respondent No.4) for demarcation of boundaries of land having Araji No. 950, Mauja Khajurgaon, Pargana Pachotar, Tehsil Kasimabad, District Ghazipur (hereinafter referred to as the land in question). The said application was registered as Case No. T201814291102291 of 2017. The Deputy Collector (respondent No.4), vide order dated 01.09.2017 directed the Revenue Inspector to inspect and measure the land in question and submit a report of the same.

5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the Deputy Collector (respondent No.4), one Suresh Singh (brother of Respondent No. 5) moved a recall application dated 05.06.2018, inter-alia raising the ground that the said order dated 01.09.2017 was passed ex-parte without issuing any notice to him.

6. However, in compliance of the order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the respondent No.4 in Case No. T201814291102291 of 2017, the Revenue Inspector submitted a report dated 12.06.2018 before the Deputy Collector, Kasimabad, Ghazipur (respondent no. 4), inter- alia, detailing the measurement of the land in question and requesting therein for necessary action.

7. Subsequently, vide order dated 11.12.2018 passed by the Deputy Collector (respondent no.4), the aforesaid recall application dated 05.06.2018 came to be dismissed. Shortly thereafter, the petitioners’ father died on 19.12.2019, and the petitioners were substituted as legal heirs.

8. Thereafter, the Deputy Collector (respondent no.4) on the basis of the Revenue Inspector’s report dated 12.06.2018, passed the order dated 08.06.2022 whereby the said report was confirmed and direction was issued to the concerned Tehsildar, regarding the demarcation of the land in question. The said order dated 08.06.2022 was executed by the Tehsildar and the Lekhpal, on 26.03.2023.

9. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 08.06.2022, respondent no.5 preferred an appeal on 12.04.2023 under Section 24 (4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which was registered as Case No. 771 of 2