Dismissed¶33

Sabir Ali v. Nagar Nigam Lko. Thru. Its Administrator and 4 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2026SPLAD/41/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 5032 days delay; special appeal defective; SPLAD No. 41 of 2026; maintainability of special appeal; writ petition arising from revenue court revision; U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901; Section 229-B U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act; declaration of succession; mutation; Akbar Ali; Fazal Fatime; Nagar Nigam Lucknow; Shivmma vs. Karnataka Housing Board 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969; appeal misconceived; abuse of process; costs refrained age of appellant; Chapter VIII Rule 5 Allahabad High Court Rules 1952; Arun Bhansali Chief Justice; Jaspreet Singh J; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; January 19, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Special appeal dismissed; condonation of delay refused; costs not imposed considering the age of the appellant. ¶33

Sabir Ali vs Nagar Nigam Lko. Thru. Its Administrator and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 41 of 2026

Sabir Ali

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

Nagar Nigam Lko. through its others	Administrator and 4	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Anu Pratap Singh : Shailendra Singh Shukla, A.C.S.C.	Chauhan, Nishant

¶7

Chief Justice's Court

¶8

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶9

I.A.No.1 of 2026

¶10

Heard Sri Anu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no.1, which is taken on record.

¶11

The appellant has filed an appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 assailing a judgment and order dated 19.03.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.1282 (M/S) of 2010, whereby the writ petition filed by the private respondent no.5 was dismissed by the writ court vide its judgment dated 19.03.2010.

¶12

The Registry of this Court has reported the instant special appeal is barred by 5032 days.

¶13

In the affidavit accompanying the application seeking condonation of delay, the delay has been explained in paragraphs 2 to 9 which is being reproduced hereinafter:

¶14

"2. That in the writ petition 1282 (M/S) of 2010 irrelevant observations have been made without any reasonable basis vide judgment and order dated 19.03.2010.

¶15

SPLAD No. 41 of 2026

¶16

¶17

That on 10.05.2010 SLP filed by writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to his right to proceed in accordance with law.

¶18

That on 16.11.2010 writ petition filed suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act which was dismissed on 02.02.2015 in which Fazal Fatime wife of Akbar Ali was also impleaded as defendant.

¶19

That writ petitioner surrendered his right, but Fazal Fatime contested further by filing Appeal which was allowed on 30.12.2016 and she was declared as successor of Akbar Ali and further vide order dated 23.01.2017 was declared as owner and she was directed to be mutated in placed of Akbar Ali.

¶20

That Second Appeal filed by Nagar Nigam was dismissed on 31.10.2018.

¶21

That Nagar Nigam has filed writ petition bearing Writ-B No.3933 of 2019, which is pending in which orders have been passed on 08.02.2019 and 23.09.2025 to file any record in support of their claim but no such record could be filed till date.

¶22

That without having any record, Nagar Nigam Lucknow as well as State is taking plea of finality attained regarding irrelevant observations made in judgment and order dated 19.03.2010, although same was related with only mutation proceedings, hence said observations are continuously adversely affecting the rights of appellant, so legal advice was taken on 25.12.2015, and Legal Advice was given to file Special Appeal for quashment of irrelevant observations, and hence without any further delay, Special Appeal is being filed.

¶23

9.That on 08.01.2026 hectic efforts were made to get informations regarding FIR's mentioned in judgment and order dated 19.03.2010, but no such pendency of Criminal Case Could be noticed."

¶24

Shri Anu Pratap Singh learned counsel for the appellant, attempted to justify the delay and has also urged that the need arose to file the appeal as certain observations were made in the impugned judgment dated

¶25

SPLAD No. 41 of 2026

¶26

¶27

13.03.2010 which were bad and they were coming in the way of the appellant, who is contesting his proceedings before the appropriate Court.

¶28

It is also urged that for the aforesaid reason, the delay in filing the appeal be condoned and the issue involved in the instant appeal may be heard on merits.

¶29

Shri Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Nigam has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions and has urged that the delay of 5032 days has not been explained at all, apart from the fact, that an order passed by the revenue court in revisional jurisdiction under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, was challenged in the writ petition and against such an order, special appeal is not maintainable. Hence, the instant appeal is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and deserves to be dismissed out rightly.

¶30

The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record.

¶31

Apparently, the special appeal is barred by 5032 days and in light of the averments made in the affidavit which have been reproduced hereinabove, there is no iota of explanation for the colossal delay and apparently no cause much less sufficient cause has been made out.

¶32

It is also equally true as pointed out by Shri Chauhan for the Nagar Nigam, that the special appeal is not maintainable against an order passed by the Single Judge in a writ petition arising out of revisional proceeding from the Revenue Courts.

¶33

This Court noticing the decision of the Apex Court in Shivmma vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 finds that the delay cannot be condoned and the appeal is absolutely misconceived, which actually deserves to be dismissed with appropriate costs. However, considering the age of the appellant, the Court refrains from imposing the costs.

¶34

(Jaspreet Singh,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

¶35

January 19, 2026

¶36

ank

¶37

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sabir Ali v. Nagar Nigam Lko. Thru. Its Administrator and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabir Ali v. Nagar Nigam Lko. Thru. Its Administrator and 4 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

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others vs Priya Gupta

Ram Murat Saroj vs Union of India, Thru. Secy. Home,Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi and 3 Others

Scooters India Ltd. Thru. Chief Financial Consultant Mr. Raj Shekhar Tiwari vs M/S Eisenmann India Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Managing Director

Sunil Chaurasiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 7 Others

Union of India, Thru. Prin. Chief Materials Manager Modern Coach Factory Raebareli vs M/S Kineco Ltd. 41, Pilerne Industrial Estate, Bardez Goa

Union of India Thru. Inspector General, Railway Protection Force, Baroda House New Delhi and Others vs Panchu Gopal Ghosh