Allahabad High Court
Sahid Mohammad And Others vs The D.D.C. And Others on 27 July, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:150509
Court No. - 48
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 25565 of 1996
Petitioner :- Sahid Mohammad And Others
Respondent :- The D.D.C. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.P.Pandey,P.S.Pandey,R.C. Singh,Viveka Nand Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,H.S.N. Tripathi,L.K.Tripathi,Manisha Singh,Sanjay Pathak
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1.Heard Sri Viveka Nand Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri.P.S. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents and Sri H.K.Srivastava, Brief Holder.
2. This writ petition is pending since 1996 and the issue involved is very limited.
3. Original petitioners have approached this Court challenging the orders dated 19.4.1980, 26.3.1990, 7.5.1996 and subsequently by way of amendment order dated 9.4.2003 was also challenged.
4. Appeal filed by the original petitioners was rejected on the ground of laches that the appellants failed to explain the delay of about 5 years. Revision petition thereof was also rejected.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that Appellate Court while considering the application for condonation of delay has touched the merits of the case and rejected the application without considering the explanation mentioned in the application.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Prakash Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi & Ors, 2022 (2) AWC 1345 (LB).
7. Learned counsel for respondents submits that after about five years, original petitioners have tried to open the case in regard to dispute of an agreement and the Appellate Court as well as the Revisional Court have returned a finding that at the belated stage, petitioners cannot dispute the factum of agreement. However, they are not able to refute the position of law.
8. Learned Brief Holder also submits that this writ petition be disposed of in terms of Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Prakash (supra).
9. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.
10. As referred above, original petitioners have filed a belated appeal before the Appellate Authority along with the application for condonation of delay.
11. I have perused the order passed by Appellate Authority and it is evident that the Appellate Court has gone into the merits of the case so far as existence of the agreement is concerned.
12. According to the opinion of Court it is not a correct approach while considering the application for condonation of delay.
13. I have also carefully perused the order of Revisional Court and same error is precipitated in order.
14. In view of the above discussion, impugned orders dated 26.3.1990 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, 7.5.1996 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as the order dated 9.4.2003 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in reference under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 are set-aside.
15. Matter is remanded to the Appellate Court with direction to decide the application for condonation of delay afresh in the light of Ram Prakash (supra) as well as the judgment passed by Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors, (2013) 12 SCC 649 and proceed further on the basis of outcome of application for condonation of delay and the parties at lis will be at liberty to raise all their legally permissible argument and the Appellate Authority will decide the application for condonation of delay within a period of four weeks from today if there is no legal impediment.
16. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.7.2023
SB
