Dismissed

Jairam and 2 Others v. Assistant Record Officer Ayodhya and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jun 2022/2144/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Assistant Record Officer's order condoning delay in filing an appeal regarding land mutation. The Court examined the reasons for delay, found them believable, and held the condonation order was legal and in consonance with law, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as it lacks merits; the order allowing condonation of delay is upheld.

Jairam and 2 Others Vs Assistant Record Officer Ayodhya… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2144 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Jairam And 2 Others

¶4

Respondent :- Assistant Record Officer Ayodhya And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Roshan Dubey,Amit Kant Saxena

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Rahul Roshan Dubey, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Daya Shankar Tiwari, the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent no. 1.

¶8

In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to the opposite party no.2 and the same is dispensed with.

¶9

The instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 4.5.2022 passed by the Assistant Record Officer, Ayodhya whereby an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the opposite party no. 2 has been allowed.

¶10

Briefly stated, the petitioners' case is that the opposite party no. 2 had executed a registered agreement to sell the land bearing Khata No. 172, gata No. 1430 having an area of 18.5 Biswa situated in Village-Manjha Barhata, Pargana - Haveli Awadh, District Ayodhya in favour of the petitioners' father on 01.12.1986. On the basis of the aforesaid agreement to sell, the petitioners' father had filed a Case No. 120 titled as Mangal vs. Jairam in the court of Survey Nayab Tehsildar, Faizabad, which was decided on the basis of a compromise dated 07.05.1987. The petitioners claim that after the death of their father the land has been mutated in the name of the petitioners.

¶11

After about 35 years, the opposite party no. 2 has filed a

¶12

belated appeal under Section 27 of the U.P. Revenue Code against the judgment and order dated 04.05.2022 which was registered as Case No. 1517 of 2021 and the opposite party no.2 also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. .

¶13

The petitioners filed objections against the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and after hearing the parties, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been allowed by the Assistant Record Officer by means of the order dated 04.05.2022, which has been challenged by the instant petition.

¶14

The order under challenge states that the order dated 07.05.1987 had been passed an ex parte manner. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay that upon commencement of proceeding for acquisition of land, the applicant made and inspection of the Revenue Records, contacted the Lekhpal and obtained a certified copy of the relevant extract of Khatauni. Thereafter the applicant came to know about the existence of the order dated 07.05.1987. The Assistant Record Officer has held that the cause shown for delay in filing the appeal is believable and satisfactory and on the aforesaid reasons, he has allowed the application for condonation of delay.

¶15

The aforesaid order has been assailed by the petitioners on the ground that the opposite party no. 2 had executed a registered agreement to sell in favour of the petitioners' father on 01.12.1986. On the basis thereof his name was entered in the revenue record and after death of the petitioners' father, their name has been mutated in place of their father. It is contended that the the order dated 4.5.2022 is illegal, arbitrary and beyond the facts and place on record and it is based on surmises and

¶16

conjectures.

¶17

The petitioners have annexed a copy of the judgment dated 30.06.2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ B No. 357 of 2022. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment indicates that in that case, the delay in filing the appeal had not been condoned and the Court had held that once an appeal has been preferred along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the authority could not have jurisdiction to pass any order on the merit of controversy without condoning the delay. The aforesaid proposition of law does not apply to the present case as here the appellate authority has not proceeded to adjudicate upon the merits of the case without condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

¶18

The petitioners have annexed another judgment dated 04.11.2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal From Order Defective No. 788 of 2012 in which this Court referred to and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. MST Katiji and Others reported in 1987 (2) SCC Page 107, Ram Nath Sao Alias Ram Nath Sahu and Others Vs. Gobardhan Sao and Others reported in 2002 (3) SCC 195, Esha Bhattacharya Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649 and after quoting the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, this Court summarised the law that the words "sufficient cause" has to be liberally construed and has to be given a pragmatic interpretation and this Court proceeded to condone the delay.

¶19

Examining the facts of the present case in light of the case laws annexed by the petitioners along with petition, I find that the petitioners claim their title to the land in question through

¶20

an agreement to sell which obviously does not confer any ownership rights on the petitioners. The order dated 11.12.1987, against which the appeal has been filed by the opposite party no. 2, was passed in an ex parte manner. The Assistant Record Officer has found that there is nothing on record, which indicates that the appellant had knowledge of the order dated 11.12.1987 since before and he has found that the cause shown for the delay is believable and satisfactory.

¶21

Having given a thoughtful consideration to the entire material available on record, I find that the order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality and it has been passed in consonance with the law discussed and summarized by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 04.11.2019 passed in First Appeal From Order Defective No. 788 of 2012.

¶22

The writ petition lacks merits and it is accordingly, dismissed.

¶23

Order Date :- 16.6.2022 Ashish pd.

¶24

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.06.16 18:53:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jairam and 2 Others v. Assistant Record Officer Ayodhya and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jairam and 2 Others v. Assistant Record Officer Ayodhya and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kishore Rajvanshi and Another Vs Deputy Registrar,Firms Socities and Chits Lko. and 4 Others

Brij Raj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Irrigation and Water Resourse) Lko. and 2 Othes

Sumitra Devi Vs Sub-Divisinal Magistrate Colonelganj Distt. Gonda and Others

Satish Pal and 11 Others Vs Shiv Balak and Another

Mahendra Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety and Drug Administration and 3 Others

Akhand Pratap Singh and 3 Others Vs Additional Commissioner of Consolidation U.P. Lko and 12 Others