Allowed

Hari Kunwar v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2021WRIB/223/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Supreme Court set aside an order by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that directed simultaneous hearing of a delay condonation application and merits. The Court held that delay must be decided first and remitted the matter.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 7.11.2020 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to proceed in accordance with the law laid down in Nar

Hari Kunwar Vs Deputy Director of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 223 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Hari Kunwar

¶4

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Chandel,Mayank Krishna S Chandel,Ram Niwas Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

In the order impugned dated 7.11.2020 the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh has directed that the delay condonation application as well as the merits of the case shall be heard together.

¶8

It is contended by Sri Vinod Kumar Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner that the hearing of the delay condonation application and the hearing on the merits cannot be simultaneous but has to be sequential. The delay condonation application has to be decided first, and only thereafter the appeal can be heard on merits. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Nar Singh and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation reported at 1989 (2) AWC 900 . This Court in Nar Singh (supra) has held thus:

¶9

"[5] Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the basic question for determination is whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation could allow the revision without considering the question of delay in preferring the appeal. This point is covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Teerath v. Joint Director of Consolidation (supra) and I am bound by that decision . There is no denying the fact that the Deputy Director of Consolidation before deciding the revision on merits must have considered the question of delay first. The controversy between the parties appears to be silghtly different. Even though the question of delay was there, but the delay was caused by the persons who were minor (i.e. respondent Nos. 2 & 3) on the relevant date and no proper guardian was appointed. There is no evidence on record that under Rule 14 steps were taken to appoint a proper guardian. Consequently, if the delay has been caused by some minors without there being a guardian, in such matters minors need not be

¶10

blamed. It would be just an exercise in futile if the matter is remanded to be disposed of on merits before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Every court and tribunal is supposed to be the guardian of minors and consequently their interest has to be supervised with great vigilance. Unless a person becomes major, he has no legal capacity to understand the proceedings in a court of law. It would not be appreciable if the matter is remanded to be appellate court to decide this question of delay which has been caused by minors."

¶11

I find that the law laid down by this Court in Nar Singh (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. While passing the impugned order dated 7.11.2020, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh has acted in teeth of law laid down by this Court.

¶12

The judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh dated 7.11.2020 is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

¶13

The matter is remitted to be Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh to proceed in the light of law laid down by this Court in Nar Singh (supra) .

¶14

The writ petition is allowed.

¶15

Order Date :- 5.2.2021 Nadeem Ahmad

Hari Kunwar v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Kunwar v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deependra Singh Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Another

Tribeni Pd. and Others Vs J.D.C. and Others

Rajdev Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prabhakar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Nirmala Devi Vs Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil Kasia and 2 Others

Om Nath Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others