Allahabad High Court
Faujdar Singh And Others vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation, ... on 1 March, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 161 of 2023
Petitioner :- Faujdar Singh And Others
Respondent :- Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Ayodhya, And 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 petitioners, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 Sri Arun Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the caveator and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5/Gram Sabha concerned.
By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following main reliefs:-
"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.02.2023 passed by opp. Party no. 1 i.e. Dy. Director of Consolidation Ayodhya in Revision No. 2368/202354042300000029 U/S 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act Faujdar Singh & Others Vs Surendra Bahadur Singh & Others and the order dated 07.01.2022 passed by opp. party no.2 i.e. Settlement Officer of Consolidation Ayodhya in Appeal No. 827/2020540423000018 U/S 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as contained in Annexures No. 1 & 2 to the writ petition."
The main ground to assail the orders impugned is to the effect that the respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya without condoning the delay, no order could be passed. However, the respondent No. 1 without considering the settled principles of law has erroneously held that the respondent No. 2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ayodhya has not made any error in passing the impugned order dated 07.01.2022, whereby, the Authority concerned directed the parties to argue on the point of limitation as well as on merits.
Elaborating this aspect of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that as per the settled preposition of law, the delay has to be condoned first and only then the Court concerned can pass the order on the application for stay as also on the merits of the case. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court 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."
Further, reliance has been placed on paragraph 32 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Noharlal Verma v. Distt. Coop. Central Bank Ltd. reported in (2008) 14 SCC 445, which on reproduction reads as under:-
"32.Now, limitation goes to the root of the matter. If a suit, appeal or application is barred by limitation, a court or an adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction, power or authority to entertain such suit, appeal or application and to decide it on merits."
The aforesaid could not be disputed by the learned counsel representing the side opposite.
Considering the aforesaid legal preposition as also the aforesaid undisputed facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the orders impugned dated 20.02.2023 and 07.01.2022 are not liable to be interfered with by this Court, as according to the order dated 07.01.2022 affirmed vide order dated 20.02.2023, the direction to the parties is to argue the case on the point of limitation as also on merits and it is expected from the Authority/Presiding Office concerned that he would follow the principles enunciated in the judgements referred hereinabove.
Accordingly, without interfering in the orders impugned dated 20.02.2023 and 07.01.2022, the present petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the respondent No. 2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ayodhya to consider and decide the issue of delay in preferring the appeal first and thereafter proceed to decide the Case/Appeal No. 827/2020540423000018 (Surendra Bahadur Singh & Others vs Faujdar Singh & Others) filed under Section 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1950, most expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The concerned authority shall avoid unnecessary adjournments to either party.
It is further provided that while conducting the proceedings the proper opportunity of hearing shall be provided to the parties to the proceedings.
The writ petition is disposed of finally in aforesaid terms.
Order Date :- 1.3.2023
Arun/-
