IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that delays in legal proceedings can be condoned liberally, especially in cases involving allegations of fraud.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

By means of this writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, petitioners have challenged the order dated 10.11.2022 (Annexure No.5) passed by the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar passed in Revision No.51 of 2021-22, ‘Sachin Kumar & Ors. Vs. Santosh Devi & Ors.’, filed under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings At, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), by which while dismissing the revision, the order dated 27.12.2021 passed by learned Court of 4th Consolidation Officer, Roorkee was affirmed, whereby the delay in filing the restoration application has been condoned and the restoration application is directed to be decided on merits.

2. The petitioners have also impugned the entire proceedings on the ground that the same is abuse of the process and prayed to quash the entire proceedings of the Suit No.83 of 2020-21 ‘Smt. Santos Devi Vs. Somdutt (Deceased)’, which is initiated on the restoration application dated 17.12.2019, moved by the respondent herein.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 01.10.1999 and the rights w.r.t. the property subject matter of the case was matured in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 14.12.1999. The property comprising of Khata No. 131 Chak No. 286 was devolved on the petitioners as well as on the respondent vide order dated 29.01.2000 pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties on 01.10.1999, in which the presence of the parties were recorded by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 14.12.1999.

4. The restoration application along with delay condonation application was moved by respondent-Santosh Devi on 17.12.2019 stating therein that the said rights were settled by fraud and misrepresentation. A delay condonation application was filed alongwith restoration application for condoning the delay of around 20 years in filing the restoration application.

5. Learned Consolidation Officer by reason of the judgment and order dated 27.12.2021, condone the delay in filing the restoration application and accepted the restoration application by fixing the date for hearing on 10.01.2022.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioners filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar under Section 48 of the Act. The said revision was also met with the same fate and was rejected on 10.11.2022 by the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders suffer from legal infirmity and illegality and a delay of 20 years was condoned by the Authorities without any reason. He further submitted that since rights were devolved among the parties, on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties in view of the compromise dated 01.10.1999 and their presence were recorded on 14.12.1999, therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the restoration application should not have been condoned.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that since the rights were devolved in the presence of the parties through compromise, the reopening of the said matter would be a futile exercise.

9. I have perused both the orders passed by the 4th Consolidation Officer, Roorkee as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar. From the perusal of the order passed by 4th Consolidation Officer, Roorkee, only this much reflected that the delay in filing the restoration application was condoned, but restoration application is still pending consideration. Learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar has also of the view that since the restoration application is still pending, only the delay is condoned, there would be no harm, if the petitioners would contest the restoration application on merits.

10. In this view of the reasoning given by both the Court below, I do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. It is a trite law