Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 3213

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Ambey Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (B) No. 16 of 2025
Decided On : 31-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Pramod Kumar Singh Paliwal
For the Respondents: Sanjay Kumar Ray, Achal Singh

The law of limitation necessitates prompt legal action; extraordinary delays in appeals require compelling reasons for condonation, which were not present in this case.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9A(2) and Limitation Act, 1963 - Dismissal of time-barred appeal based on a delay of 43 years - Delay explained as lack of education but deemed inadequate for condonation - Law of limitation emphasizes vigilance in enforcing rights and stability in human affairs. (Paras 1, 2, 7, 9).

(B) Condonation of delay - The explanation for delay must be cogent and convincing; lack of education cannot justify a 43-year delay in invoking appellate remedies. (Paras 2, 8).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner purchased land through registered sale deeds but faced record discrepancies leading to a delayed appeal against a 1980 order, filed 43 years later.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner's attempt to condone a 43-year delay was dismissed, reaffirming the lower authorities' decisions.

Issues: Whether lack of education constitutes sufficient cause for condoning a 43-year delay in filing an appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that extraordinary circumstances must be shown for condonation of significant delays, and the explanation given was insufficient.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. nature of time-barred appeal and claim (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's reasons for delay (Para 4 , 6)
3. implications of lengthy delay in judicial procedures (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. directive for communication of order (Para 10)

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against an order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot dated 19.10.2024, dismissing the petitioner’s revision and affirming an order made by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Chitrakoot dated 31.01.2024, dismissing the petitioner’s Appeal No. 479 of 2023, arising out of an order of the Consolidation Officer dated 16.05.1980 as barred by time.

2. The short facts necessary to determine this motion are that a time-barred appeal was preferred by the petitioner, Ambey Singh, against the order made by the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 4413, State v. Ambey Singh , dated 16.05.1980, under Section 9A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 [‘Act of 1953’ for short] on 30.11.2023 with a delay of 43 years. The appeal was filed with the aid of an application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963, praying for condonation supported by an affidavit.

3. The short case of the petitioner for the condonation of delay was that he purchased a one-sixth share in Plot Nos. 585 and 586 through a registered sale deed dated 26.11.1971 and another dated 02.05.1973, and still another relating to a half share in Plot No. 385 admeasuring 2-0-0. He is in possession of the land purchased on the spot. Plot No. 585 has been renumbered as Plot No. 628 and an area of 078 decimals has been recorded as abadi Class 6, leading to the petitioner’s interest being seriously prejudiced. The petitioner would say that he purchased the land in dispute through registered sale deeds and it has been recorded in Class 6 erroneously. During chakbandi, Plot Nos. 585 and 586 were declared chak out and there was no change to this position. There is no justification for the land in dispute to be recorded in the Gaon Sabha khata. In CH Form 2A, it is recorded as abadi and the original land holder shown is the petitioner’s vendor. The Consolidation Officer’s order dated 16.05.1980 has directed Plot No. 585 admeasuring 1.50 decimals and Plot No. 586/1 admeasuring 0.95 decimals to be recorded as ‘abadi shamil jot’ and Plot No. 586/2 admeasuring 0.14 decimals as a road, besides 0.78 decimals in the same plot as abadi Class 6, all of which deserve to be expunged and restored to the petitioner’s khata.

4. This gives a look into the nature of the petitioner’s claim with a view to assess the tenability of his plea for condonation of delay, which, indeed, is huge. The explanation for the delay is that the petitioner is not a highly educated man, who has a scant understanding of the law. It is for the said reason that this delay has been occasioned, which he seeks to be condoned. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Chitrakoot, by his order of 31.01.2024, declined to condone this delay. The petitioner went up in revision to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot, who, by the impugned order dated 19.10.2024, affirmed the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and dismissed the petitioner’s revision.

5. Aggrieved, this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been instituted.

6. Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh Paliwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and Mr. Achal Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5.

7. It is a well-regarded principle that the law comes to the aid of the vigilant and not those who are loath to enforce their rights by the invocation of appropriate remedies. One might be inclined to think that the law of limitation ultimately permits falsehood to prevail, because the one on whose side truth and justice stood, was somehow disabled, or, may be, lethargic, in seeking his remedies within the prescribed per

Click Here to Read the rest of this document