Allahabad High Court
Faujdar Singh And 4 Others vs Settlement Officer Of ... on 18 April, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 304 of 2023
Petitioner :- Faujdar Singh And 4 Others
Respondent :- Settlement Officer Of Consolidation,Ayodhya And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Tiwari,Mohan Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arun Kumar Tiwari learned Counsel for opposite party no.2-Surendra Bahadur Singh.
Under challenge is the order dated 11.04.2023 passed by opposite party no.1-Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ayodhya in appeal no. 902 which was filed under Section 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"). By the order impugned, the opposite party no. 1, has directed the parties to argue the case on the application for condonation of delay as also on merits. This order further says that issue related to condonation of delay would be decided first and thereafter the merits would be considered.
Assailing the order dated 11.04.2023, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned is in violation of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment passed in the case of Ram Prakash v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 107, relevant portion of which on reproduction reads as under:-
"19.We are not going into the issue as to whether an order passed by appellate authority on an application seeking condonation of delay is an interim order or final as the same has not been referred for consideration by the Division Bench. Different situations may arise in an appeal filed along with application seeking condonation of delay. Firstly, the application for seeking condonation of delay may be dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the appeal will also fail. Another situation may be that application seeking condonation of delay is allowed and thereafter the appeal may either be accepted or rejected.
20.If any statute provides certain period for filing of appeal, an appeal filed beyond the time limit will certainly be not entertained. If the provisions of 1963 Act are applicable and party is entitled to seek condonation of delay in filing appeal, an application has to be filed specifying the grounds on which delay in filing the appeal is sought to be condoned. It is only after that the application is allowed, the appeal can be entertained and heard on merits. Before that the appeal cannot be taken up and considered on merits.
21.As far as the issue regarding hearing of the application seeking condonation of delay and the appeal simultaneously is concerned, in our view, firstly the application has to be considered. Only thereafter, the appeal can be considered on merits but there is nothing in law which requires hearing of appeal on merits to be postponed mandatorily after acceptance of the application seeking condonation of delay. Both can be taken up on the same day. However, the appeal has to be heard on merits only after the application seeking condonation of delay has been accepted.
22.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question referred to the Division Bench that an application seeking condonation of delay has to be decided first before the appeal is taken up for hearing on merits. However, it can be on the same day and there is no requirement of adjourning the hearing of appeal on merits after acceptance of the application seeking condonation of delay."
He further submitted that the petitioner earlier filed a petition bearing Writ-B No. 161 of 2023 (Faujdar Singh and Others Versus Dy. Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya and Others), which was considered and decided by this Court vide its order dated 01.03.2023, with direction to the opposite party to consider and decide the issue of delay in preferring the appeal first and thereafter proceed to decide the case/appeal.
He further submitted that in view of the judgment(s) of this Court, the application for condonation of delay should be heard first and as such indulgence of this Court is required.
The aforesaid could not be disputed by the learned counsels for the opposite parties.
Considering the aforesaid legal preposition as also the aforesaid undisputed facts of the case, this Court is of the view that order dated 11.04.2023 is requires clarification.
Accordingly, it is provided that Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ayodhya, shall consider and decide the issue related to condonation of delay first and then call upon the parties to argue the case on merits, even on the same day, as it is permissible by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court.
The petitioner would also file an undertaking before the authority concerned, indicating therein that he would not take any adjournment and he will appear on each dates.
It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.4.2023
Jyoti/-
