Court No. - 38

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20346 of 2022

Petitioner :- Kusum Yadav And Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish,Gajala Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

1. Heard Sri Manish, learned counsel for the petitioners

and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 17.05.2022 whereby the Commissioner Varanasi

Division Varanasi has dismissed the revision filed by the

petitioners under the provision of the Uttar Pradesh

(Regulations of Building Operations) Act, 1958. Against

that, the father of petitioner no.1 had preferred appeal on

03.03.1989. Upon its dismissal on 22.06.1998, father of

petitioner no.1 namely Ghurbhari Yadav (husband of

petitioner no.2) had preferred a revision. During pendency

of that revision, the Ghurbhari Yadav died. It has further

stated that the substitution application was pending when

the revision petition came to be dismissed by order dated

22.06.2021. The recall application filed by the petitioners

against that order has also been rejected by order dated

17 May, 2022.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

having perused the record, it is seen, against the order

dated 23.01.1989, the petitioners filed appeal on

03.03.1989 i.e. just outside the period of limitation of thirty

days. It was dismissed as time barred. In the revision

proceedings, it was specifically pleaded in paragraph

no.11 that the order dated 23.01.1989 was first served on

the petitioners father on 03.02.1989. Limitation computed

therefrom, the appeal was filed well within limitation on

03.03.1989. That essential fact has been completely lost

sight by the appellate authority. In the revision

proceedings, further error appears to have crept in,

inasmuch as, the revision came to be dismissed after the

date of death of the applicant in revision and during

pendency of the substitution application.

4. In such facts, no useful purpose would be served in

keeping in the present petition pending or calling for a

counter affidavit, at this stage.

5. Prima facie, it does appear that the petitioners have not

been dealt fairly.

6. Accordingly, the orders dated 17.05.2022, 22.06.2021,

22.06.1998 and 23.01.1989 are set aside. The matter is

remitted to the appellate authority to treat the appeal

instituted against the order dated 23.01.1989 to have

been filed within limitation as the period of limitation has

to be computed from the date of service and not from the

date of order itself.

7. Accordingly, the appellate authority may now fix

another date in the proceedings (on which date the

petitioners undertake to file a substitution application),

such that it is disposed of preferably within a period of

three months from the date the petitioners file a copy of

this order before the said authority.

8. Writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 25.7.2022

S.Chaurasia

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM

CHAURASIA

Date: 2022.07.26 17:28:53 IST

Reason:

Location: High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad