Smt. Nanki Devi vs Board Of Revenue And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 7864 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 32
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 771 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Nanki Devi
 
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheo Ram Singh,Shashank Shekhar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, learned standing counsel representing respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 and perused the record.

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the order proposed to be passed hereunder, this Court proceeds to finally decide the matter at admission stage itself, with the consent of the counsel present in the Court.

Instant petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 9.12.2021 passed by Board of Revenue rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed on behalf of the petitioner along with memo of revision assailing the order dated 22.4.2010 passed by Collector, Allahabad arising out of proceeding under Section 198 (4) UP ZA and LR Act.

Facts culled out from the averments made in the writ petition are that a lease deed was granted in favour of the husband of the petitioner along with some other villagers on the basis of a resolution dated 23.8.1994 passed by Gaon Sabha and the said proposal for lease was granted approval by Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 30.9.1995. It appears that, at subsequent stage, on the complaint made by Village Pradhan, a report dated 13.12.1996 has been submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Phoolpur against the said lease deed approved on 30.9.1995. Initially lease was cancelled by order dated 30.7.1997 but, subsequently, said order was recalled by order dated 28.8.1998. Finally, order dated 22.4.2010 was passed by Collector cancelling the lease deed granted in favour of the allottees. Feeling aggrieved, a revision has been preferred on behalf of Smt. Nanki Devi (petitioner), who is widow of Bheem Rao (one of the allottee in allotment order dated 30.9.1995) at a belated stage on 8.3.2017 along with delay condonation application supported by an affidavit. The Board of Revenue has dismissed the delay condonation application with an observation that the grounds taken for condonation of delay is not sufficient, therefore, revision is dismissed at admission stage itself.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay was sufficiently explained by the revisionist in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application. It is further submitted that the revisionist could not approach in time before the Court inasmuch as the order was passed against the husband of the revisionist and the factum of decision dated 22.4.2010 could not come in the knowledge of the revisionist within time. It is further submitted that the Board of Revenue has dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in a cursory manner without adverting to the facts as mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, therefore, order passed by the Board of Revenue, being cryptic and without application of mind, is liable to be quashed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and learned standing counsel have vehemently opposed the present writ petition and contended that the Board of Revenue has rightly dismissed the revision after considering the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application. It is further contended that there is no illegality, perversity or ambiguity in the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue, therefore, it does not warrant any indulgence of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on Board.

The impugned order dated 9.12.2021 reveals that same has been passed without considering the contents/averments as made in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application that the previous counsel engaged on behalf of the husband of the petitioner had died and, therefore, her husband has engaged a new counsel namely Prem Bahadur Srivastava, Advocate, who has also died, but his death could not come to the knowledge of her husband. At subsequent stage, husband of the revisionist had also died on 18.1.2013 and after the death of her husband, his heirs and legal representatives were ordered to be recorded in the revenue record. In December, 2016, when new allotment process started, she came to know about the previous order dated 22.4.2010 by which allotment was cancelled. These facts, as averred in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, has not properly been adverted to by the Board of Revenue while rejecting the delay condonation application. Legislation is not intending to prevent the litigant from getting substantial justice and whenever substantial justice and technicalities is pitted against each other, it is substantial justice, which will prevail, therefore, merely on the ground of the limitation, that too, same has not properly been dealt with by the Board of Revenue, it would not be justified to deprive the petitioner from getting justice from the Court of law. In a catena of judgments Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed the view that endeavour should be made for extending the substantial justice rather to shut the door of justice on technical ground.

It is settled law that all Courts of law are established for furtherance of interest of substantial justice and not to obstruct the same on technicalities. Reference-- Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal Vs. National Building Material Supply; AIR 1969 SC 1267, wherein it has been held that the substantial justice and technicalities, if pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should not be defeated on technicalities. No procedure in a Court of law should be allowed to defeat the cause of substantial justice on some technicalities. Reference - Ghanshyam Dass & Ors. Vs. Dominion of India & Ors., AIR (1984) 3 SCC 46.

Apart from that in recent judgment of Bhivchandra Shankar More vs. Balu Gangaram More & Ors (decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 07.05.2019), reported in 2019(6) SCC 387, it is expounded that in condoning the delay "sufficient cause" should be given liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The relevant paragraph nos. 15 and 16 of the aforesaid judgment are being quoted herein below:-

"15. It is a fairly well settled law that "sufficient cause" should be given liberal construction so as to advance sustainable justice when there is no inaction, no negligence nor want of bonafide could be imputable to the appellant. After referring to various judgments, in B. Madhuri, this Court held as under:-

"6. The expression "sufficient cause" used inSection 5of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which serves the ends of justice. No hard-and-fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applications for condonation of delay but over the years courts have repeatedly observed that a liberal approach needs to be adopted in such matters so that substantive rights of the parties are not defeated only on the ground of delay."

16. Observing that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, inN. Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy(1998) 7 SCC 123, this Court held as under:-

"11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts.

So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time." As pointed out earlier, an appeal under Section 96 CPC is a statutory right. Generally, delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned, in the interest of justice, where there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay."

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed above, I am of the considered view that the Board of Revenue has committed illegality in dismissing the revision on the ground of delay. The petitioner, to her best effort, has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the revision before the respondent no. 1.

In this conspectus as above, in my opinion, present writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 9.12.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue is hereby quashed. Revision along with delay condonation application before the Board of Revenue is hereby restored to its original number. Parties are relegated before the Board of Revenue to get the matter decided afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment as above. It is expected that the delay condonation application moved by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously as early as possible.

Parties are directed to appear before the Board of Revenue within a period of two weeks along with a certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 25.7.2022

vinay