Allowed

Vasudev and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2024/228/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the writ petition by setting aside orders rejecting the petitioner's revision due to a 38-day delay. Directed the revisional authority to decide the revision on merits within six months, holding the delay was not inordinate given the petitioner's age and health.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned orders dated 18.12.2023 and 28.04.2023. Directed revisional authority to decide revision on merits within six months.

Vasudev and Another Vs Deputy Director of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28069

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 228 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vasudev And Another Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Sultanpur And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Balram Yadava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shishir Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the order dated 18.12.2023, passed by respondent no. 1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur whereby rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner and for quashing the appellate order dated 28.04.2023 passed by respondent no. 2, Settlement OfÏcer Consolidation, Sultanpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that in the basic year khatauni of 1388 to 1393 in plot no. 6647 measuring 5 biswas and in plot no. 6649 measuring 19 biswas were recorded in the name of petitioner no. 1.

¶8

It is further submitted that the village was under consolidation operation started in the village, the survey was carried out and the revision of field book and current annual register were revised by the Consolidation OfÏcer, as per Sections 7 and 8 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as Act of 1953) and after appreciation of the statement of principles as per provisions of Section 8-A of the Act of 1953, the same was notified and published under Section 9 of the C.H Act, form -5 was issued showing the name of petitioner in the above mentioned plot.

¶9

After the publication, the objection was preferred by respondent nos. 3 and 4 under Section 9 of the Act of 1953 and their objections were rejected, against which respondent nos. 3 and 4 preferred an appeal which was allowed ex-parte on 28.04.2023 by respondent no. 2.

¶10

Against the appellate order, the petitioner had preferred a revision before respondent no. 1 alongwith delay condonation application as there was delay of 38 days in filing the revision. The same has been rejected by impugned order dated 18.12.2023 on the ground of delay and the reason has been assigned that the revisionist has not given the particular date as to when he had recovered from the illness after December, 2022.

¶11

It is further submitted that the delay in filing the revision is due to the old age of the petitioner i.e. he is 75 years of

¶12

age and he was ill and living in a remote village from the headquarters at Sultanpur where the revision was to be filed.

¶13

It is further submitted that the delay of 38 days is not an inordinate delay on which the revision could have been dismissed/rejected. The rejection of the revision deprived the petitioner to get substantial justice. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in the case of Tukaram Kanajoshi and others through Power of Attorney Holder versus M.I.D.C and others, reported in AIR 2013, Supreme Court 565 and the judgment in the case of Smt. Kaushalya Devi @ Munni versus Collector, Pilibhit and others, reported in 2010 SCC Online All 3168 : (2010) 110 RD 802 .

¶14

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 has submitted that the petitioner had not explained the delay on day to day basis nor he had filed any document in support of his illness, which is the ground taken in the delay condonation application and in support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgments in the case of Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through legal representatives and others versus Union of India and another, reported in (2023) 10 Supreme Court Cases 531 , the judgment in the case of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana versus Ujagir Singh and others, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 786 , the judgment in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee versus Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649 and the judgment in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewarage Board and others versus T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 .

¶15

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case as well as through the judgments relied by learned counsel for the parties, the position which emerges out in the present case is that admittedly, the revision was filed with a delay of 38 days. The reason assigned in the afÏdavit filed alongwith the delay condonation application before the revisional authority by the petitioner was that he is 75 years old aged person living in a remote village from the headquarters at Sultanpur, where revision was to be filed and all these reasons caused delay of 38 days in filing the revision.

¶16

The revisional authority had rejected the revision by rejecting the delay condonation application observing that the petitioner had not disclosed that when he had become fit after the illness in the month of December, 2022.

¶17

The expression " sufÏcient cause " in explaining the delay must be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented

¶18

approach rather than the technical detection of sufÏcient cause for explaining every day's delay. There is a distinction between the delay and inordinate delay. In the present case, there is a delay but not an inordinate delay. There is a delay of 38 days, it is not an inordinate delay on the ground on which, the revision had been rejected by the respondent no. 1 depriving the petitioner from getting substantial justice. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply (supra) there was an inordinate delay of four years whereas in the case of Esha Bhattacharya (supra) there was an inordinate delay of 2447 days and in the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the principles applicable to the applications for condonation of delay and one of the principles as quoted below:

¶19

'There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.'

¶20

The case of the petitioner falls under the same as there is a delay of only 38 days which should have been condoned by the revisional authority in place of rejecting the revision.The delay of 38 days is in no way an inordinate delay, more particularly looking to the old age and ill health of the petitioner.

¶21

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed .

¶22

The orders dated 18.12.2023, passed by respondent no. 1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and the appellate order dated 28.04.2023 passed by respondent no. 2, Settlement OfÏcer Consolidation, Sultanpur are hereby set aside.

¶23

The revisional authority is directed to decide the revision on merits within a period of six months from the date certified copy of this order is served without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

¶24

Order Date :- 5.4.2024 DiVYa

¶25

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vasudev and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasudev and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Badal Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich and Others

Smt. Renu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Uday Bhan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Juvenile Delinquents X in Case Crime No 26/2023 Thru. Grandmother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rakesh Kumar Misra and Others vs Sri Sardar Singh, Distt. Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh

Shyam Shankar Shukla and Others vs Sri Sardar Singh, Distt. Inspector of Schools Pratapgarh