Dismissed

Smt. Sarla Devi Mishra @ Sarla Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. for Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2024/593/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble the High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging delay in filing appeal under UP Consolidation Act. Court found unexplained 43-year delay lacks merit and denied quashing order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no interference in impugned orders.

What the court decided

Smt. Sarla Devi Mishra @ Sarla Mishra Vs State of U.P… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:41144

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 593 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Sarla Devi Mishra @ Sarla Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. For Revenue Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Rastogi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned revisional order dated 06.04.2022, appellate order dated 24.09.2020, order dated 14.10.1976 passed by the Consolidation OfÏcer and order dated 24.06.2023 (which is an information given to the petitioner).

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the revisional order was passed against the petitioner on 06.04.2022 but the petitioner had not explained the laches of about more than two years in filing the present writ petition.

¶9

It is further submitted by learned Standing counsel that the appellate court and the revisional court have rightly rejected the revision and the appeal preferred by the petitioner as the appeal was preferred after the delay of 43 years, without explaining the inordinate delay properly. The reason shown in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with the appeal wherein it has only been said that she was under impression that after the demise of her father, the land would have been mutated in her name and when she met the Lekhpal, she came to know that the land was not mutated in her name so, immediately she filed an appeal. The said reason given in the application does not properly explained the delay of 43 years so there is no illegality and irregularity in the orders passed by the revisional authority and the appellate authority.

¶10

It is further submitted that the village has already been de-notified under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 after the consolidation proceedings and it has rightly been rejected by the appellate authority, otherwise entertaining the appeal with such a delay of 43 years would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the

¶11

judgements/order dated 03.05.2023 passed by this Court in Writ B No. 218 of 2022 (Vijay Narayan vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 6 Ors.).

¶12

In reply thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, wherein it has been held that a liberal approach should be adopted in the matters of condoning the delay.

¶13

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case and the judgments relied by the learned counsels, the position which emerges out in the present case is that the Consolidation OfÏcer had passed the order on 14.10.1976 and the appeal was preferred in the year 2019 i.e. after about 43 years along with delay condonation application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The extract of the delay condonation application preferred by the petitioner is being quoted hereinbelow:-

¶14

न्ययाययालय शቦኍमयान बन्ददोबस्त अधधिकयारቦኍ चकबन्दቦኍ महदोदय - खቦኍरቦኍ

¶15

सरलया अपቦኍल कतर / पयाधररनቦኍ

¶16

बनयाम

¶17

गय ा व सभया आदद - दवपकቦኍगण

¶18

शቦኍमयानजቦኍ ,

¶19

पयाधररनቦኍ कया दनववेदन दनम्नधलधखत ह ह -

¶20

धियारया 1 यहदक पयाधररनቦኍ दबनया पढቦኍ धलखቦኍ गयामቦኍण मदहलया हह जदो कयानूቦኍ पदቅኌयया सवे न अनदभ्ሺ हह।

¶21

धियारया 2 यहदक पयाधररनቦኍ अभቦኍ तक यहቦኍ समझतቦኍ रहቦኍ दक उसकवे ममृतक दपतया वयालቦኍ जमቦኍन पयाधररनቦኍ कवे नयाम आ गयቦኍ हदोगቦኍ , दकन्ततु जब उसनवे लवेखपयाल सवे खसरया पया्቎ करनवे गयቦኍ , तब लवेखपयाल दयारया बतयायया गयया दक अभቦኍ पयाधररनቦኍ कवे नयाम जमቦኍन दजर नहीሻ हहई हह।

¶22

धियारया 3 यहदक पयाधररनቦኍ लखቦኍमपतुर आकर अपनवे वककील सयाहब सवे दमलकर कयानूቦኍ रयाय न

¶23

लवेकर अदवलम्ब यह पयाररनया प्ቔ शቦኍमयान जቦኍ कवे समक दयाधखल कर रहቦኍ हह।

¶24

धियारया 4 यहदक पयाररनቦኍ दयारया जयानबनूझ कर कदोई लयापरवयाहቦኍ पयाररनयाप्ቔ दवेनवे मम नहቦኍ ककी हह

¶25

बललक अ्ሺयानतया वश ऐसया हहआ हह जदो कमया यदोग्य हह।

¶26

अतह शቦኍमयान जቦኍ सवे दनववेदन हह दक पयाधररनቦኍ कया पयाररनया - प्ቔ अन्दर दमययाद स्वቦኍकयार करतवे हहए भቦኍ दमययाद अधधि० ककी धियारया 5 कया लयाभ पदयान करनवे ककी कमृपया ककी जयायवे।

¶27

पयाधररनቦኍह - सरलया देቦኍ पतु्ቔቦኍ सदोहनलयाल व दन० गयाम लतुधिधौरቦኍ पर० व तह० दनघयासन धजलया खቦኍरቦኍ - दयारया -

¶28

शቦኍ डቦኍ०कवे० धसाሙह , एडवदोकवेट

¶29

From perusal of the application for condonation of delay, it appears that the petitioner had not disclosed the death of her father as to when he had expired, she had also not disclosed that after the demise of her father, she had moved any application for mutation in the revenue records, she had also failed to show any document regarding the possession on the property.

¶30

The reason assigned for delay in the afÏdavit filed along with the application for condonation of delay is not tenable on the face of it and as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649 , it is unexplainable inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the appeal. Relevant paragraph no. 15 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶31

'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, first one wants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.'

¶32

In the present case, the petitioner after about 43 years has filed an appeal without properly explaining the delay. Her application for condonation of delay does not give the date of death of his father, date and time when she met the Lekhpal and on what basis she had been under the impression that her name must have been mutated in place of her father and that when she had contacted her counsel. The application is berest of these facts/details. In such a case, no interference is called for.

¶33

In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, no interference is called for in the impugned revisional order dated 06.04.2022, appellate order dated

¶34

24.09.2020, order dated 14.10.1976 passed by the Consolidation OfÏcer and order dated 24.06.2023.

¶35

The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶36

Order Date :- 30.5.2024 Nitesh

¶37

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Sarla Devi Mishra @ Sarla Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. for Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Smt. Sarla Devi Mishra @ Sarla Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. for Revenue Lko. and 4 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Bhagwan Dei Vs Additional Commissioner Judicial Lucknow and Ors.

Sarita Gautam Vs Naib Tehsildar, Thesil Purwa, Distt. Unnao and Others

Mansha Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Others

Dinesh Kumar Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko. and 46 Others

Sarvjeet Singh and Others Vs State of the U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Ram Feran Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Shravasti and 2 Others