Liberal approach to delay condonation under Section 5 of Limitation Act prioritizes substantial justice over technicalities absent gross negligence or mala fides; mere condonation causes no serious prejudice.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 19.07.2024 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Addl. District Magistrate (Revenue and Finance) Udham Singh Nagar in Case No. 52/01 of 2017, Mohd. Ahmad and Anr. Vs. Irshad Hussain and Ors.

2. Brief facts, of the case, are that the father of the petitioner and proforma respondent no. 3 to 5 herein Mr. Abdul Hameed and the father of respondent no. 1 and 2, Mr. Nisar Ahmad were brother and have equal share over the property in question, i.e, land situated at Village Sarkadi, Tehsil Bazpur, District U.S. Nagar, i.e., gata no. 114 min area 0.221 hectares and gata no. 114 min area 0.354 hectares total area 0.575 hectares. Subsequently, Mr. Abdul Hameed and Mr. Nisar Ahmad during their lifetime executed their “will” on 20.03.1991 and 29.08.1994 and bequeathed the property in question in favour of the petitioner and respondent no. 3 and since then they are in continuous possession over the property in question.

Subsequently, proceeding under Section 6 (A) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was initiated on the will basis of the executed by Late Nisar Ahmad on 29.08.1994 and the name of the petitioner and his brother-respondent no. 3 was ordered to be recorded in the revenue record in place of Late Nisar Ahmad pursuant to an order dated 23.05.2016, passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Bazpur, District U.S. Nagar in case No. 350.

3. Being aggrieved with the order dated 23.05.2016, respondent no. 1 and 2 preferred a revision being Revision No. 5201 of 2016-17, Mohd. Ahmad & anr. Vs. Irshad Hussain & Ors., and since the revision was time barred revision, a delay condonation application was also moved under section 5 of the Limitation Act. On this application, objection was filed and the Revisional Court vide order dated 29.06.2018 allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer.

4. Against the order dated 29.06.2018, the petitioner also preferred a Writ Petition No. 2807 of 2018, Irshad Hussain vs. Mohd. Ahmad & Ors., which was decided on 21.02.2022, and the matter was remanded back to the Deputy Director Consolidation with the direction to reconsider the revision after passing appropriate order on the delay condonation application. After the remand order passed by the High Court, the Deputy Director Consolidation, allowed the delay condonation application by order dated 19.07.2024. Being aggrieved with the same, now the instant petition has been preferred.

5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned court below erroneously passed the order impugned by which delay has been condoned without assigning any reason, and, in fact, allowed the same in arbitrary and cursory manner.

6. I perused the order impugned dated 19.07.2024 and while deciding the delay condonation application, the Deputy Director of Consolidation/ ADM (Finance & Revenue) adopt a liberal approach while considering delay condonation application. Even otherwise it is settled principle of law that a liberal approach to delay condonation application under Section 5 of Limitation Act prioritizes substantial justice over technical, rigid adherence to time limit provided there is no gross negligence or mala fide intent. Apart from this, merely on the ground that the delay has been condoned, the petitioner cannot be said to be seriously prejudice, and, as such, I do not find any merit in this petition.

7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.