Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2471

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Bharat Singh – Appellant
Versus
A.D.C. – Respondent
WRIT - B No. - 12664 of 1985
Decided on : 04-12-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Swaraj Prakash,Kapil Tyagi
For the Respondent: B.D. Mandhyan, S.C.

The comparative hardship of the parties must be considered in chak allotment disputes, and a writ should not be dismissed as infructuous when substantive rights are at stake.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 19 and 48 - Restoration application re: chak allotment proceedings - Writ petition dismissed as infructuous in 2014 due to lack of merit; however, delay in filing for restoration was condoned, allowing for adjudication on merits - The comparative hardship approach must be applied in chak allotment disputes. (Paras 5, 10, 12)

(B) Writ Petition - A writ cannot be dismissed as infructuous if substantive rights are affected and can be addressed by the court. (Paras 4, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged changes to his chak allotment from a consolidation order issued in 1984 through a lengthy review process complicated by the death of necessary parties over decades.

Findings of Court:
The dismissal of the original writ is set aside, requiring a fresh review of the chak allotment considering the comparative hardships of all parties involved.

Issues: Whether the applicant's rights were affected by the consolidation proceedings and whether the case could be restored despite delays.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the necessity of considering comparative hardship when changing chak allotments and emphasized that the writ should be restored for a proper adjudication.

Result: Writ petition allowed in part, with matter remitted for fresh review.

Table of Content
1. substitution application for legal heirs noted. (Para 1 , 2)
2. delay not adequately explained by respondent. (Para 3 , 4)
3. restoration of writ petition granted. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court considerations on granting relief. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. remand for adequate hearing and notice. (Para 10)
6. status quo to be maintained until resolution. (Para 12 , 14)
7. comparative hardship evaluated for decisions. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 78188 of 2016 and Civil Misc. Recall/Restoration Application No.78189 of 2016

1. Heard Mr. H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vineet Kumar Singh and Mr. Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.D. Mishra, learned counsel assisted by Mr. S.N. Tiwari learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2.The instant restoration application along with delay condonation application have been filed to recall the order dated 19.11.2014 dismissing the writ petition as infructuous.

3. Mr. M.D. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that delay has not been properly explained, as such the restoration application is liable to be rejected as time barred. He further submitted that respondent No.3 is dead as such writ petition cannot be restored unless notices are served upon proposed heirs of deceased respondent No.3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that writ petition arises out of chak allotment proceeding and interim order was granted in the year 1985 when the writ petition was entrained as such it requires adjudication of dispute on merit rather dismissing the writ petition as infructuous.

5. Considering the averment made in the affidavit filed in support of the recall/restoration application, the delay in filing the restoration application is condoned.

5. Cause shown in the affidavit for non appearance on the date fixed is also sufficient.

6.The order dated 19.11.2014 dismissing the writ petition as infructuous is hereby recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number.

7. Applications are accordingly, allowed.

Order on C.M.Delay condonation Application No.77912 of 2016 and C.M. Substitution Application No.77914 of 2016

1.Heard Mr. H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vineet Kumar Singh and Mr. Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.D. Mishra,, learned counsel assisted by Mr.

S.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. The instant substitution application along with delay condonation application have been filed to substitute the legal heirs of deceased-sole petitioner

3.Mr. M.D. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that delay has not been properly explained, as such application is liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay has been properly explained in the affidavit. He further submitted that in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in A.I.R. 1987 SC 1357 collector Land Acquisition Anantnag Vs. Mst. Kantiji , the dispute is to be adjudicated on merit rather on technical grounds.

5. Considering the averment made in the affidavit filed in support of the delay application as well s ratio of law laid down by Hon'bl;e Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag (Supra) delay in filing the substitution application is condoned.

6. Let the word 'deceased' be mentioned against the name of sole petitioner and the name of his legal heirs as mentioned in prayer clause be substituted as petitioner Nos.1/1 and 1/2

7. Applications are accordingly allowed.

Order on C.M.Delay condonation Application No.4 of 2024 and C.M. Substitution Application No.5 of 2024 along with an application for Stetting aside abatement

1.Heard Mr. H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vineet Kumar Singh and Mr. Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.D. Mishra, learned Counsel assisted by S.N.

Tiwari, learned co