Ram Shidhare and Others v. The Collector/Distt D.D.C. and Others

Order on Memo of Petition

¶1This case is arising out of a belated appeal. An application to condone delay of 30-35 years in filing appeal at the behest of contesting-respondents was rejected by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Basti vide order dated

13.10.2008 and relevant part of the order is reproduced hereinafter: "

पककककववरदअधधवककगणककतकरससनकगयकतथकपतकवललककअवललकनवकयक

गयकधजससकवववदतहलतकहहवकपथमअपललच०अ०ककआदकशवदनकनक22.10.67

तथकवदतलयअपलल28.09.67

ककववरद30.06.2008

कलयलधजतककगयलहहइस

गकमककधकरक-52

ककपककशनहहएलगभग30-35

वररवयतलतहलचसककहहतथक

समसतअवभलकखमकलअवभलकखकगकरममबहहतपहलकहलसनवचतवकएजकचसककहहयदवप

वकअपललकतकरगणदकरकपपथकपपथकवमयकदककयकचनकककसकथशपथपतपसतसत

वकयकगयकहहवकनतसइतनकवररककसमसवचतककरणशपथ-

पतममदवशरतनहहवकयकगयक

" हह।अपललसवरपथमवमयकदककवबनदसपरहलखकररजवकएजकनकयलगयपकयलगयल।

¶2Aforesaid order was challenged by contesting-respondents before Revisional Authority, i.e., Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti by filing revision which was allowed by means of impugned order dated 02.12.2008 and relevant part of order is reproduced hereinafter: "

पककककअधधवककउपससथतआयक,

धजलकशकसककयअधधवककरकजसवउपससथत

आयक।बहसममकहकगयकवकचकबनदलममतकनलककवबनदसओपरधयकननहलदकनक

चकवहयकअवपतचकबनदलममवकदसदहवककधलयकवनणरतवकयमजकतकहह,

अततवमयकदकक

लकभदकरसवतवकलधसदकरनकहकतसवयवदगकनवसभकककवहतवनवहतहलतलधयकन

ममरखतकहहएपरलकणनयकयकलयकलभकजनकउवचतहलगक।बनदलबसतअधधककरल

चकबनदलनकधकरक-5

ककलकभनदकरअपललकलवमयकदककवबनदसपरवनरसतकर

वदयकहह,

जबवकवनगरकनलकतकरगणकककथनहहवकउनहकअवरनयकयकलयदकरककलई

ससचनकनहलदलगईहहऔरनहलससनवकईककअवसरवदयकगयक।अततउनककववरद

पकररतएकपकलयआदकशवनरसतकरधकरक-5

ककलकभदकरवकदककवनणरयवकयक

जकयक।अवरनयकयकलयककआदकशककअवललकनसकवववदतहहवकवनगरकनलकतकरकल

ससनवकईककअवसरनहहवदयकगयकहहऔरवमयकदबकहरअपललकलवनरसतकरवदयक

गयकहहअततवकदककगसणदलरककआधकरपरवनणरयहकतसबनदलबसतअधधककरल

चकबनदलककआदकशवनरसतकरअपललगसणदलरककआधकरपरवनणरयहकतस

पतयकववतरतकरनकउवचतवनयकयकलयपकयकजकतकहह।तदनसकरवनगरकनलसवलककर

वकयकजकनकयलगयहह।"

¶3Sri B.S. Pandey, learned counsel for petitioners submits that extraordinary delay of 30-35 years ought to have been considered by taking a strict approach, however, Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken a liberal approach which is not justified in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others, (2013) 12 SCC 649.

¶4Per contra, Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel appearing for contesting-respondents submits that order impugned before Appellate Authority was apparently a creature of fraud, therefore, even there is extraordinary delay, it may be condoned taking a liberal view.

¶5Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

¶6It is well settled that extraordinary delay may be considered by taking a strict approach. As referred above, the order passed by Appellate Authority is bereft of reasoning since the explanation mentioned in delay condonation application has not been considered in its correct perspective. Contents of delay condonation application is reproduced hereinafter: "

यहवकमकहजसन2008

ककपथमसपकहमकहमअपललकथरगणकलअपनकसमपधतकक

इऩतखकबलकनकककआवशयकतकपडलचसनवकहमअपललकथरगणकलअपनकहहधसयत

पमकणपतबनवकनकथक।चसनकनचकलकखपकलदकहकसकवववकवदतभसवमककइनतखकबलकनकगयक

तलउनहलनकबतकयकवकवववकवदतभसवमहमअपललकथरगणककनकमसकदजरनहलहहधजसक

ससनकरहमअपललकथरगणकलघकरआशचयरहहआतबहमअपललकथरगणबसतलआयक

औरचकबनदलअवभलकखकककमसआयनकवकयकऔरवदनकनक11.06.2008

कलनकल

ककदखकरसतवदयकजलवदनकनक21.06.2008

कलपकपहहआऔरकधथतमसकदमककक

पतकवललककमसआयनककरनकककदखकरसतवदयकधजसपरबतकयकगयकवकऐसलकलई

पतकवललनतलबसतलमकलअवभलकखकगकरममममजसदहहऔरनतलदजरगमसवकरकहह।हम

अपललकथरगणकलइसककपसवरउकवववकदकककलईजकनककरलनहहथलजकनककरलहलनक

ककततककलवकदअपललदकधखलवकयकजकरहकहह,

हमअपललकथरगणनकजकनबसझकर

कलईलकपरवकहलसमयसकअपललदकधखलकरनकममनहहवकयकहहधजससकहम

अपललकथरगणकलदफक5

वमयकदअधधवनयमककदकतकहहएअपललवमयकदअनदर

मकनकरअपललवमयकदअऩदरटटलटवकयकजकनकआवशयकहह।

अततशलमकनजलसकपकथरनकहहवकहमअपललकथरगणकलदफक5

वमयकदअधधवनयम

ककदकतकहहएअपललवमयकदअनदरमकनकरअपललवमयकदअऩदरटटलटकरनकककआदकश

दकनककककपपककरम। "

¶7I have also carefully perused the order passed by Revisional Authority which also passed in a very cursory manner without even considering the averments made in application.

¶8In aforesaid circumstances as well as considering the allegations and in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate that both orders, i.e., orders passed by Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority be set aside and matter is remitted back to Appellate Authority.

¶9In view of above, orders dated 13.10.2008 and 02.12.2008 are hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to Appellate Authority to decide appeal afresh in the light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Ram Prakash vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and others, 2022(2) AWC 1345

(LB).

¶10As pointed out by learned counsel for petitioners, since petitioners herein are not party before Appellate Authority, therefore, learned counsel for contesting-respondents is directed to file an amended memo of parties before Appellate Authority and Appellate Authority is directed to decide application for condonation of delay after hearing both parties in accordance with law.

¶11The order impugned before Appellate Authority may be verified from revenue records, if so warrants.

¶12With aforesaid observations/ directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 22.11.2023 AK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 27763 of 2009 Petitioner :- Ram Shidhare And Others Respondent :- The Collector/Distt D.D.C. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- B.S. Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Tripathi B.G. Bhai Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. Re: Substitution Applications No. 2 of 2018 and 9 of 2018 1. Heard. 2. Allowed. 3. Let substitution be carried during course of the day.