Madhav Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Maharajganj Camp and Others

Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 15177 of 2007 Petitioner :- Madhav Prasad Respondent :- Dy. Director Of Consolidation Maharajganj Camp And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- N.K. Saxena,Alok Kumar Yadav,Deepak Saxena,Niraj Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dwivedi S.C.,R.K. Tiwari,Ramanuj Yadav,Sanjeev Khare Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶1Heard Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Ramanuj Yadav, learned counsel for respondents.

¶2This matter is arising out of consolidation proceedings. It appears that Consolidation Officer has decided the objections on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The respondents after about 18 years have objected said compromise and filed a belated appeal along with application for condonation of delay before Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches by impugned order dated 05.10.2001. The respondents thereafter preferred a revision petition. The Revisional Authority by impugned order dated 31.01.2007 allowed the revision petition and set aside the orders passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation and after entering into merit of the case, remitted back matter for fresh consideration.

¶3Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Revisional Authority has committed two errors, firstly impugned order before Revisional Authority was only in regard to condonation of delay in filing belated appeal was rightly rejected or not? However, without considering the aspect of delay and even not condoning the delay in filing appeal, Revisional Authority has committed second error by entering into merit of the case and returned a finding referred above.

¶4Learned counsel for respondents submits that compromise was creation of fraud and Deputy Director of Consolidation under its wide power has rightly appreciated the objections to compromise and in order to verify the same, remitted back the matter to Consolidation Officer. However, learned counsel has not disputed that Deputy Director of Consolidation has not condoned the delay in filing appeal.

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

¶6Before considering rival submissions of parties, relevant part of order of Revisional Authority is reproduced below -: "

ममननपकककन ववददनअधधवकदगणककन तकररककससनदतथदपतदवललकद

अवलककनवकयद।चकबरदलअधधकदरलकन पतदवललपरउपलबधसमझझतनकन

अवलककनसनसपसटहहवकइसपररदमददस, चनतरदम,

मदधवपसददकनहसतदकर

हहऔरइनककवशनदखतहहपरनतसधलधखतखदतनददरवववदवदतभभवमकनरदमददसव

चनतरदमपसतगणकदशलपसददवपयदरलदसलहनबनवदरदमनदथभलहहऔरपयदरल

दसलहनकनसमझझतनपरउसकनहसतदकरनहहहह

अततजबतकसभलसमझझतनपर

हसतदकरनकररऔरउनककवशनदखतनहकतबतकचकबनदलअधधकदरलददरद

ऐसनसमझझतनकन आधदरपरपदररतआदनशववधधकन अनतगरतनहलहहदभसरन

रदजदवदईपसतलरदमनदथकदजकबयदनधलयदगयदहहवहसमझझतनकनपसतसतहकनन

कनवदनदरककदनहहहहअततवददमरधलयनगयनवयदनकनआधदरपरसमझझतनकक

ववधधपभवरकनहहमदनदजदसकतदहह

।पककदरकककनयदयवमलसकनइसधलयनयह

उवचतपदतदहहवकपसनतचकबनदलअधधकदरलइसमरपककककसदकयपसतसतकरनन

कदअवसरपददनकरर।

सहदयकबनदकबसतअधधकदरलचकबनदलननकनवलववलमब

कनवबनदसपरहलपभरदआदनशआधदररतवकयदहह

,

सवतवकनमदमलकमरतकनलकक

आधदरपरपककदरकककउऩकनवहतकसनवरवचतनहहवकयदजदनदचदवहयनअततमह

यहउवचतपदतदहहवकस०ब०अ०च०कदआदनशतकनलककआधदरपरजक

आधदररतहहवहनयदयकवचतनहहहहऔरइससनपककदरककनवहतकपरपवतकभल

पभदवपडतदहहस०ब०अ०च०कदआदनशवनरसतवकयदजदकरपतदवलल

चकबनदलअधधकदरलकननयदयदलयककपतयदववतरतकरनदउवचतहकगद ।तदनसदर

चकबनदलअधध०ददरदपदररतआदनशवदनदरक13.03.81

एवरसहदयकबनदकबसत

अधधकदरलचकबनदलददरदपदररतआदनशवदनदरक05.10.2001

वनरसतहकननयकगय हह।"

¶7It is not in dispute that Appellate Authority has rejected the belated appeal on ground of delay without entering much into merit of the case. This was challenged before Revisional Authority, therefore, Revisional Authority has to consider firstly whether the delay could be condoned or not.

¶8However, as referred above, there is no finding in regard to that issue and therefore, I find merit in argument of learned counsel for petitioner that at this stage, Revisional Authority has committed a legal error by entering into merit of the case without deciding issue of delay .

¶9In these circumstances, impugned order dated

31.01.2007 is set aside and matter is remitted back to Deputy Director of Consolidation with a direction to decide only an issue that whether Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal after 18 years or not and on basis of its outcome may proceed further in accordance with law.

¶10Learned counsel for parties are at liberty to raise all contentions on delay condonation application.

¶11Revisional Authority is directed to consider the revision petition afresh on the issue referred above expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.

¶12Writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 28.11.2023 Nirmal Sinha High Court of Judicature at Allahabad