Rambaran Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 52

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7990 of 2023

Petitioner :- Rambaran Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Achal Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents and Shri Achal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4Land Management Committee.

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 30.07.2022 passed by the respondent no.2-Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Karwi, District-Chitrakoot and the order dated 30.12.2022 passed by the respondent no.3Collector/District Magistrate-Chitrakoot, District-Chitrakoot.

¶7

An order was passed on 30.07.2022 directing dispossession of the petitioner and imposition of damages upon him in exercise of powers under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 (in short the Code-2006). Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal under Section 67(5) of the Code-2006 on 07.11.2022. Since, there was short delay in filing the appeal, it was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stating that the petitioner acquired knowledge about impugned order on 20.10.2022 and got a copy of the same on 31.10.2022 and, therefore, in case there is a delay in filing an appeal, the same may be condoned.

¶8

The appellate court vide impugned order dated 30.12.2022 has rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a very strict view of the matter has been taken by the appellate court and since the matter pertains to dispossession of the petitioner, short delay of few days should have been condoned.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner had knowledge about original proceedings and, therefore, there is no illegality in the order impugned.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶12

The appellate court in the order impugned, has observed that petitioner has filed appeal after 12 days of obtaining certified copy of the order impugned and, therefore, the appeal is barred by limitation and, accordingly, the same was dismissed.

¶13

Since the matter pertains to dispossession of the petitioner and the appeal was preferred with a very a short delay, I am of the opinion that appellate court should have taken a liberal view of the matter and should have heard the appeal on merits after condoning the delay.

¶14

Rule 186 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules-2016 reads as follows:-

¶15

" 186. Non-applicability of CPC (Section 214) .-The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall not be applicable to the summary proceedings under the Code or these rules, but the principles enshrined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the principles of natural justice shall be observed in the disposal of such proceedings."

¶16

The aforesaid Rule has been thoroughly interpreted by this Court in its recent decision in the case of Leellu v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2023 (3) ADJ 97.

¶17

Since the appeal is the continuation of the original proceedings under Section 67 of the Code-2006, principles of natural justice should have been observed by the appellate court.

¶18

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.12.2022 passed by the Collector/District Magistrate-Chitrakoot (respondent no.3) is hereby set aside . The delay in filing the appeal is condoned by this Court and the appeal of the petitioner is restored to its original number and status.

¶19

The court concerned is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits after affording full opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned within four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶20

Order Date :- 7.4.2023

¶21

Jyotsana

¶22

Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rambaran v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rambaran v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanajit Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Lalta Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 14 Others

Mahendra Prasad Kushwaha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Renu Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Mukesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Harivansh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others