Dismissed

Munni Lal v. Gorakh and 10 Others

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2023WRIB/3847/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order that condoned a 28-year delay in filing a revision petition regarding land consolidation. Despite no separate application for condonation being filed originally, the court found the delay was a fit case for condonation and quashed the challenge.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of lack of merit.

Munni Lal Vs Gorakh and 10 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:219279

¶2

Court No. - 48

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3847 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Munni Lal Respondent :- Gorakh And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharm Vir Jaiswal,Ashish Kumar,Harsh Vikram Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Adya Prasad Tewari

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

This is second round of litigation. Earlier petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved that Revisional Authority without even an application for condonation of delay, has allowed revision filed by contesting-respondents.

¶7

This Court vide order dated 07.07.2023 passed in Writ-B No. 1816 of 2023 has set aside the impugned order therein and matter was remitted back to Revisional Authority. Relevant part of order is reproduced hereinafter:

¶8

"Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Adya Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents argued at length.

¶9

Crux of issue before this Court is whether in absence of any independent application for condonation of delay in filing revision petition to condone huge delay of more than 3-4 decades, a revision petition can be entertained by condoning the delay.

¶10

Various rival submissions have been raised by learned counsel for rival parties.

¶11

I have perused the record and found that while filing revision petition, no independent application for condonation of delay was filed and only an averment was made in memo of revision to condone the delay. It has also been pointed out that in terms of Rule 111 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, limitation provided for filing revision petition under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 is of 30 days. It has also been pointed out that revision is filed alleging that a fraud has been played with the Court/Authority.

¶12

Revisional Authority by impugned order has condoned the delay and passed the impugned order treating the averment made in memo of revision petition to be a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, without taking note that no application for condonation of delay was filed and further certain observations, such as that no limitation is provided for

¶13

filing revision petition are made which apparently appear to be not in consonance with the legal position.

¶14

There is substance in the argument of learned counsel for respondents that only due to fault of advocate for not filing separate application for condonation of delay, rights of contesting respondents may not be curtailed and since there is an averment in regard to fraud, therefore, opportunity be granted to contesting respondents/revisionists to file an application for condonation of delay so that Revisional Authority may consider the same and if it still finds that it is a fit case to condone the delay after hearing the parties, he may hear the revision.

¶15

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the garb of filing separate application for condonation of delay, respondents may not be permitted to raise absolutely a new case.

¶16

In view of above submissions and factual aspects, while setting aside the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 passed by DDC, Maharajganj (respondent no.1) in Revision No. D-201905470001590 (Gorakh vs. Munni Lal and others) along with Revision No. D-201905470001591 (Gorakh vs. Munni Lal and others), this writ petition is disposed of with an observation that if an application for condonation of delay is filed within 15 days from today, the Revisional Authority, after inviting objections from petitioner/respondent therein, shall decide the said application in accordance with law within two months from today, taking note of a judgment of Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others, (2013) 12 SCC 649.

¶17

It is made clear that Court has not gone into merit of the case so far as issue of any fraud is concerned."

¶18

Sri D.V. Jaiswal, learned counsel for petitioner submits that on remand Deputy Director of Consolidation after taking note of rival submissions and quoting few relevant paragraphs of the judgment in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others, (2013) 12 SCC 649 just allowed delay condonation application without assigning any reason therein. Revisional Authority has not appreciated that delay of 28 years is an extraordinary delay.

¶19

Per contra, Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for contesting-respondents submits that considering the facts and circumstances of case that there is an element of fraud also and this is a case arising out of consolidation proceedings, in the interest of parties, let the mater be decided on merit.

¶20

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

¶21

This Court in earlier round of litigation has remitted case to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide delay condonation application on merit. By means of impugned order Revisional Authority after quoting rival submissions and relevant paragraphs of the judgment in Esha Bhattacharjee (supra) has abruptly allowed delay allowed delay condonation application. In these circumstances, this Court deals with merit of the case so far as delay is concerned.

¶22

It is not disputed that there is delay of 28 years which is a extraordinary delay. I have carefully perused the detailed application for condonation of delay filed by contesting-respondents, which is part of this writ petition being Annexure-13 and specifically para 15 of the application which states that on similar issue other revisions are still pending, therefore, any argument of prejudice cannot be accepted. For reference paras 14 to 17 of application are reproduced hereinafter:

¶23

"14. यह ककि कविषयगत ततीननो हती कनगरराकनयोሱ ममे Malafied intention समे फराड एविव किकटरचनरा तथरा BACT DATED पतराविललियराव ततैयरार किरराकिर कनगररानतीकितराቔኋ किनो सरारविरान न्यराय परा्቎ किरनमे मम अविरनोध उत्प्ቐ ककियरा गयरा हतै , जनो मरामलिमे किमे तथ्योሱ एविव पररससथकतयोሱ समे सराकबित हतै। इसललिए पररसतीमरा कविषयकि कबिन्दक महत्विपकरቔኋ नहीሻ रह जरातरा। लिमेहराजरा न्यरायकहत मम कमयराद किकी छकट पदरान किरतमे हहए , ततीनोሱ कनगरराकनयोሱ पर सममेककित ससुनविरायती गसुर-दनोष किमे आधरार पर किरकिमे उकचत वि न्यरायसवगत आदमेश पराररत ककियरा जरानरा आविश्यकि हतै।

¶24

यह ककि ततीनोሱ कनगरराकनयोሱ किरा उन्विरान गनोरख बिनराम मसु्ቐतीलिरालि विगतै० हती हतै। य्ቕकप ततीनोሱ कनगरराकनयोሱ एकि Land in Dispute किमे बिरावितत् समरान प्ቌकिरारोሱ किमे मध्य कभि्ቐ कभि्ቐ आदमेशोሱ किमे कविरू्ቍ यनोलजत किकी गयती हतै। जतैसमे ककि कनगररानती सव०–डती 201905470001590 च० अ० (न्यराकयकि) गनोरखपसुर किमे आदमेश कदनरकि– ा 12.07.1991 तथरा चकिबिन्दती अलधकिरारती दतीविरान बिराजरार गनोरखपसुर किमे आदमेश कदनरकि – ा 19.10.2000 किमे कविरू्ቍ कदनरकि ा - 30.05.2019 किनो दरालखलि हतै। तथरा कनगररानती सवख्यरा -डती 201905470001591 बि०अ०च० गनोरखपसुर किमे आदमेश कदनरकि– ा 30.04.1991 किमे कविरू्ቍ कदनरकि ा - 30.05.2019 किनो दरालखलि किकी हतै। उसती पकिरार कनगररानती सवख्यरा -डती 202005470000549 सहरायकि चकिबिन्दती अलधकिरारती किमे आदमेश कदनरकि ा -05.08.1976 किमे कविरू्ቍ कदनरावकि-13.02.2020 किनो यनोलजत ककियरा गयरा हतै।

¶25

यह ककि न्यराय किकी एकिरूपतरा किमे ललिए ततीननो कनगरराकनयोሱ किरा एकि कनसतरारर ककियरा

¶26

जरानरा न्यरायकहत मम आविश्यकि हतै।

¶27

यह ककि फराड़ एविव किकटरचनरा पकरती पकቅኌयरा किनो द क षत किर दमेतरा हतै तथरा फराड किरनमे विरालिनो किनो फराड किरा लिराभि किदराकप नहीሻ कदयरा जरानरा चराकहए अन्यथरा न्यराय किकी मवशरा कविफलि हनोतती हतै।"

¶28

In aforesaid circumstances, though the impugned order is bereft of reasons, however, as discussed above, I find after considering contents of delay condonation application that it is a fit case where delay could be condoned. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with impugned order.

¶29

The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed accordingly.

¶30

Order Date :- 20.11.2023 SB

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munni Lal v. Gorakh and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munni Lal v. Gorakh and 10 Others

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

Mangaru Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gomti and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Sajiwan and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 7 Others

Ram Lal Bind Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Amir Hasan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Satish Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others