Allahabad High Court
Azad Bahadur Singh vs The State Of U.P. Through The ... on 28 April, 2022
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000078 of 2001
Petitioner :- Azad Bahadur Singh
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Through The Collector Unnao And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avadhesh Kumar,Dinesh Kr Mishra,Ratna Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
Instant writ petition has been filed assailing the prayer for quashing the order dated 19.7.2000 and the order dated 31.8.2001 passed by the appellate authority, i.e., Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact Pratap Bahadur Singh, who was original tenure holders had three sons including the petitioner. In 1993, ceiling proceeding started in respect of the land in question, vide Case No. 67 of 2011, State Vs. Pratap Bahadur Singh, under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1960'). The Prescribed Authority passed and on 31.7.1993 declaring 2.814 hectare land as surplus. As the petitioner was working at Gujarat, he had no knowledge about the said notice. Thus, in the aforesaid ceiling proceedings, he could not file objection before the Prescribed Authority. As soon as, he returned back in 1998, he filed an objection under Section 11 (2) of the Act 1960 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Prescribed Authority rejected the objection of the present petitioner. The Prescribed Authority without recording the finding on the objection properly, has dismissed the objection of the present petitioner. After the aforesaid order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner approached the appellate authority, i.e., Additional Commissioner (Adm.), Lucknow Division, Lucknow by way of filing an appeal. The said appeal was delayed by 20 days but the appellate authority dismissed the same on 19.7.2000 on the ground of delay and latches. The petitioner, after the order dated 19.7.2000, has also moved an application before the Additional Commissioner for restoration of the aforesaid appeal with a prayer to pass an interim order. The Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow on the aforesaid application passed an order dated 31.8.2021 whereby the application was dismissed on the premises that the restoration application after the order passed on 19.7.2000 is not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact there was delay of 20 days in filing of the aforesaid appeal. The order dated 19.7.2000 has been passed on hyper technical ground which is not permissible under the settled principle of law. In support of his submissions, he has also placed reliance on para 3 of the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and others Vs. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 SC 1353, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 (Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the CPC, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period) of the Indiamn Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enabgle the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "Sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a menaingful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:-
1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against the when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
3. "Every days's delay must be explained: does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Whey not every hour's delay, every second's delay: the doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay."
Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan, 2009 (75) AC 241 wherein Apex Court in para 12 has held as under:-
"...The courts, therefore, have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression of sufficient cause. Merit is preferred to scuttled a decision on merits in turning down the case on technicalities of delay in presenting the appeal. Delay as accordingly condoned, the order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties..."
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in fact there was delay of 20 days which was duly explained by the petitioner. As such, the impugned orders passed by the Additional Commissioner assail illegality and infirmity and are liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State very vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that the order dated 19.7.2000 has rightly been passed by the Additional Commissioner as there was delay of 6 years in filing the objections before the Prescribed Authority and, as such, the Additional Commissioner has dismissed the appeal filed before him. He further submitted that later on he had filed an application for restoration of the aforesaid appeal which is not maintainable as per the law, as such, the same was also dismissed on 31.8.2001. The orders impugned passed by the appellate court cannot be said to be assailing any illegality.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, I find that in fact the Additional Commissioner has decided the delay condonation application filed in support of the appeal taking hyper-technical ground. There was slight delay of only 20 days in filing the appeal, thus, the appeal should have been heard on merits. In such view of the matter, the orders dated 19.7.2000 and 31.8.2001 passed by the appellate authority i.e., Additional Commissioner (Admn.), Lucknow Division, Lucknow are hereby quashed.
The matter is remanded back to the Additional Commissioner (Admn.), Lucknow Division, Lucknow/appellate authority to hear the matter afresh after affording opportunity of hearing on the delay condonation application considering the law settled by the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and others Vs. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan, 2009 (75) AC 241.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.4.2022
Ram Murti
