Arvind Kumar Sood And Others vs D.D.C And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 21197 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:158649
 
Court No. - 48
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 53840 of 2008
 

 
Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Sood And Others
 
Respondent :- D.D.C And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Malviya,Hriday Raj Tripathi,Manoj Kumar Rajvanshi,Prakash Chandra Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N.Singh,Ram Kishun Misra,S.K. Tyagi,S.K.Singh,S.N.Yadav,V.K. Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

Order on Substitution Application Nos.4 of 2018 and 22 of 2023.

1. Both the applications are filed for substituting the legal heirs of respondent no.5 and petitioner nos.1 and 4 respectively.

2, Applications are allowed.

3, Substitution be carried out within 48 hours.

Order on Writ Petition.

1. Heard Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vishesh Rajvanshi,, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri S.K.Singh and Sri R.K. Misra, learned cousnel for respondents.

2. After arguing for some, learned counsel for parties are in agreement that impugned order dated 31.1.2007 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ghaziabad, whereby while considering the belated appeal filed on behalf of Land Management Committee, through Chairman considered the matter on merit and thereafter not only condoned the delay, but simultaneously allowed the appeal partly which is against the judgment passed by Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Prakash Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi & Ors, 2022 (2) AWC 1345 (LB). Relevant paragraph of aforesaid judgment is mentioned hereinafter:

"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."

3. In view of the above, impugned orders dated 31.1.2007, passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ghaziabad and 29.7.2008 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad are set-aside and the matter is remanded to Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ghaziabad to decide the application for condonation of delay and the appeal in terms of Ram Prakash (supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from today, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.

4. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 8.8.2023

SB