Disposed

Sheoraj Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2023WRIB/1986/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioners to challenge the impugned order dated 11.10.2012. The court directed that the Authority concerned consider the application for condonation of delay in accordance with law. The order also stated that grievance regarding restoration was not addressed in that specific appeal.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to challenge the order dated 11.10.2012 with liberty to press application for condonation of delay.

Sheoraj Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:154029

¶2

Court No. - 48

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1986 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Sheoraj Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhur Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rahul Kumar Tyagi

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Madhur Prakash, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Rahul Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and learned Standing Counsel for State.

¶7

The petitioners' grievance are that it is not in dispute that they are co-sharer of half of land of Khata No.124 of which certain portion of land has been sold to respondents and in grab of saledeed their area has also been declared sold and as Abadi.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioners has opposed the part of contention that petitioners are still in possession of their share on the spot.

¶9

Petitioners were further aggrieved by an order dated 11.10.2012 passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation as well as order dated 24.05.2011 passed under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

¶10

The petitioners have challenged above orders by filing separate appeals at belated stage. Both appeals were rejected by separate orders mainly on ground of limitation. The order passed under the provision of Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was challenged by way of filing a belated appeal in the year 2022 as well as a restoration application was filed to restore the proceedings and to recall the order dated 11.10.2012 at belated stage in the year 2022.

¶11

The petitioners have filed independent revision petition to challenge the above referred both the orders.

¶12

The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rejected the revision petition filed against the orders passed under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 as well as against the rejection of appeal mainly on the ground of delay in approaching the Appellate Court.

¶13

It appears that petitioners have not challenged the order dated 11.10.2012 passed in appeal No.2 (Smt. Santosh Vs. Virendra).

¶14

Sri Madhur Prakash, learned counsel for petitioners, after arguing for some time submits that liberty be granted to petitioners to challenge the above referred order dated 11.10.2012 by filing a substantive appeal thereof along with condonation of delay application.

¶15

Sri Rahul Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent No.6 has opposed the above prayer and submitted that the order has already been decided on merit and petitioners have no case and at this stage and liberty may not be granted to petitioners to file an appeal at a very belated stage.

¶16

Heard counsel for parties and perused the records.

¶17

Petitioners are aggrieved since their grievance was not considered in restoration application and since they were indulged in pursuing alternative remedy, therefore, they have not challenged the order dated 11.10.2012 passed by Appellate Court on merit by filing a revision petition, therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the observation/direction that the petitioners will have liberty to challenge the order dated 11.10.2012 in accordance with law and consideration in respect of application for condonation of delay and consequence thereof shall also be considered and decided by the Authority concerned in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.8.2023 P. Pandey

¶19

Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sheoraj Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheoraj Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aash Mohammad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bharat Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Radhey Shyam Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Amar Singh and Others Vs D.D.C. and Others

Dharmendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Satyabhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others