Allowed

Harpali v. the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2023WRIC/32017/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an appellate order dismissing an appeal as time-barred. The High Court held that the appellate court failed to consider grounds for condoning delay and allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed, the appellate order dated 10.08.2023 was set aside, and the appellate court was directed to decide the appeal on merits within three months.

Harpali Vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:180550-DB

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32017 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Harpali Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishal Khandelwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

¶6

Instructions filed today, be kept on record.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed with the prayers that the order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the respondent no.3, Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Mathura and the appellate court's order, i.e. Commissioner (Judicial), Agra Division, Agra dated 10.08.2023 be quashed.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was never served with any notice with regard to digging of earth from plot nos.161 and 162. He, therefore, submits that the order dated 12.05.2022 was passed exparte . When certain recoveries were initiated in pursuance of that order, the petitioner filed an appeal in which he had denied the digging of any earth whatsoever from the plots in questions. In fact, it had been stressed that the complainant themselves had dug the earth. It has been further argued that without entering into the merits of the case, the appellate court dismissed the same as barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay and

¶9

the reasons given for condonation of delay were not looked into by the appellate court at all.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, we are definitely of the view that the appellate court did not look into the grounds which were taken by the petitioner for getting the delay condoned.

¶11

Under such circumstances, we allow the writ petition and set aside the order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the appellate court. We further direct the appellate court to decide the appeal in accordance with law and on the merits of the case within a period of three moths from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

¶12

For a period of three months or till the decision of appeal, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶13

Order Date :- 19.9.2023 R./

¶14

Digitally signed by :- RAJEEV KUMAR SACHDEVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Harpali v. the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpali v. the State of U.P. and 2 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

Smt. Neeraj Singh Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Somdutt Tyagi Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Geeta Rani Sharma Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and 2 Others

Dinesh Ji Vishwakarma Vs Purvanchal Vidyut Vitrana Nigam Ltd. and Another

Karuna Raj Singh Vs Electricity Ombudsman and 2 Others