Rangi And Others vs D.D.C. Deoria And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 294 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved on  01.12.2022
 
Delivered on 04.01.2023
 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 15323 of 2002
 

 
Petitioner :- Rangi And Others
 
Respondent :- D.D.C. Deoria And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Tiwari,B.K.Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Govind Saran,S A Lari,S.S. Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Heard Sri Surendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri S.S. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5; Sri S.A. Lari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the judgment and order dated 31.12.2001 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria; the judgment and order dated 14.08.1992 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation (Judicial), Deoria and order dated 02.04.1981 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Deoria. Further, the prayer has been made for directing the Settlement Officer of Consolidation aforesaid to decide the appeal of the petitioners on merit.

The brief facts of the petition are that against the order dated 29.09.1980 allowing the objection of the contesting respondents under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Deoria who by the order dated 02.04.1981 dismissed the appeal of the petitioners in default by the impugned order dated 02.04.1981. The petitioners filed a restoration application praying for setting aside the order dated 02.04.1981 alongwith an affidavit of the petitioner No. 1, Rangi. The Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 27.09.1984 rejected the restoration application of the petitioners on the ground that there is no proper explanation as to why the restoration application was filed after one year, 14 days and no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed praying for condonation of delay in filing of appeal and only an affidavit has been filed explaining that one of the petitioner was ill who was looking after the case.

The petitioners approached the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the order dated 27.09.1984 of Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was allowed by the order dated 15.11.1985 by the Deputy Director Consolidation and the matter was remanded back to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation for decision afresh at the cost of Rs. 50. After the remand of the case, the Assistant Settlement Officer allowed the restoration application of the petitioners by the order dated 07.08.1986 and set aside the order date 02.04.1981 dismissing the appeal of the petitioners in default. The respondents challenged the order dated 07.08.1986 of the Assistant Settlement Officer before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed by the order dated 03.08.1987 and the matter was again remanded to the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by the order dated 14.08.1992 again rejected the restoration application of the petitioners by the order dated 14.08.1992 and again a revision was preferred by the petitioners which was dismissed by the order date 31.12.2001 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision on the ground that there was no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioners and therefore, relief cannot be granted regarding condonation of delay in filing of restoration application. It has further found that the explanation for absence of the counsel before the Court was not acceptable. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court in the cases of L/Naik Mahabir Singh Vs. Chief of Army Staff 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 89 (I); N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy C.A. Nos. 4575-76 of 1998; Collector, Land Acquistion, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353; Rajpat Singh and Others Vs. v. Veer Singh 2010 (2) ALJ 637; Phool Chand and another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 2004 (96) RD 41 and Benimadho Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria and others 2003 (94) RD 372.

Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the findings of the courts below regarding the lapse on the part of the petitioners to file delay condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rightly considered by the courts below. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ragho Singh Vs. Mohan Singh 2000 Lawsuit(SC) 667.

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that the approach of the consolidation courts below was absolutely illegal and against the public policy. The dispute between the parties was regarding the title of the land and instead of deciding the dispute on merits, the matter has been lingered since the year 1981 and hearing on merit of the case has been denied to the petitioners and their predecessors. The approach of the courts in this manner undermines the faith of the public in our judicial system. The purpose of the courts are to dispense justice and not to deny justice on frivolous and hyper-technical grounds. It is not denied that an affidavit accompanied the restoration application but only because the delay condonation application was not filed, the petitioners have been compelled to litigate for more than 41 years. If this state of affairs continue, the common man will stop going to the Court since the repeated harassment by passing remand orders without any justification by the courts compels a common man to resign to his fate. He looses faith in the judicial system after such harassment.

This Court finds that the Apex Court in the case of L./Naik Mahabir Singh (supra) has held that even on oral prayer of the counsel, delay can be condoned. In the case of Benimadho (supra) this Court has held that no formal application is required where delay is sufficiently explained in affidavit. The Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and others (supra) has held that courts should adopt liberal approach in condoning delay. The Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishanan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra) has held that Law of Limitation is founded on public policy and not meant to destroy the rights of parties. This Court in the case of Rajpat Singh and others Vs. Veer Singh (supra) has held that even if there was no satisfactory explanation for delay, it can be condoned since justice demands condonation of delay. In the judgment of this Court in the case of Phool Chand and another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others (supra), this Court has held that even without a formal application delay can be condoned by the Court.

The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

In view of the above consideration of the law settled by the Apex Court and this Court, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed.

The delay in filing of the restoration application before Settlement Officer Consolidation is condoned and the restoration application of the petitioners is allowed by this Court.

The Settlement Officer Consolidation, Deoria is directed to decide the appeal No. 3389/824/2374/1080 filed on 29.09.1980 within a period of three months on merits of the dispute between the parties itself.

A copy of the decision taken by Settlement Officer of Consolidation shall be sent to the Registrar (Compliance) of this Court by SOC aforesaid on or before 15 March, 2023 which shall be kept on record of this petition.

Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

Order Date :- 04.01.2023

G.Singh