Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:84114

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1141 of 2023

Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Pratapgarh

And Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Anand Kumar

Arya,Ankit Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Puttu Lal Misra

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

Heard Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Sri Puttu Lal Misra, learned counsel for the caveator, Sri

Hemant Pandey, learned Standing counsel for the State.

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the

order dated 18.11.2023 passed by Deputy Director of

Consolidation- Pratapgarh as well as the order dated 21.01.2019

passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the

matter was decided by the Consolidation Officer on 16.04.1973

in favour of the petitioner and the caveator, after passing of

about 31 years, moved an appeal before the Settlement Officer

Consolidation in year 2004, which was dismissed in the default,

in year 2004 itself and after passing of about 14 years, the

caveator moved an application for recall of the order passed in

the year 2004 and that was allowed behind the back of the

petitioner, without affording any opportunity of hearing which

goes against the settled proposition of law as there is inordinate

delay which was not properly explained. He further added that

by way of allowing the aforesaid application, the matter is

being re-opend after passing of about 50 years and therefore,

the present petitioner is essentially be heard before the

Settlement Officer Consolidation, so far as the application for

condonation of delay in filing the recall application of the order

of 2004, is concerned therefore, submission is that the order

passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.11.2023

and Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 21.01.2019 maybe

be set aside.

Learned counsel for the Caveator has opposed the contentions

aforesaid and submitted that in fact no unlawfullness committed

by the Settlement Officer-Consolidation or the D.D.C. as the

matter was heard only on the application for recall and the

present petitioner has an opportunity to be heard on merits.

He further added that so far as the settled proposition of law is

concerned, the liberal approach is to be adopted so far as the

recall of the orders passed for want of prosecution.

Learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently

opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner

and has supported the version of learned counsel for the

caveator.

In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the

judgment rendered in Mukesh and Ors. Vs. Addl. District

Magistrate (F and R), Mathura and Ors. passed in C.M.W.P

No. 26694 of 2015 and has referred paragraph 8 of the

judgment.

Paragraph 8th of the judgment is quoted hereinunder:-

"8. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases,

it is abundantly clear that while considering the delay condonation

application, the Court has to see the merit of the case also as the law of

limitation is not meant to take away the right of appeal. The Courts are

meant for imparting substantial justice and not to scuttle the justice on

technicalities. The length of delay is also not very much material if there is

substance on merit."

Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the Court while passing

the order has held that while dealing with delay condonotaiton

application, the court has to see the merit of the case also as the

law of limitation is not meant to take away the right of appeal,

therefore, submission is that no interference is warranted.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of

material placed on record, it transpires that initial on

16.04.1973, order was passed by the Consolodition Officer and

the Caveator kept mum uptill 31 years, aft