Allahabad High Court
Ram Tirath And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 3 March, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 167 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ram Tirath And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Ehtesham Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard.
The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.02.2023 passed by the opposite party No. 2 in Revision No. 2384 In Re: Dhanpata Versus State of U.P. contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition."
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that without condoning the delay challenging the order dated 24.10.2009 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ayodhya in appeal no. 4838/288 and order dated 15.02.2003, revisional authority i.e. opposite party no. 2-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya, stayed the implementation and operation of order under revision and summon the lower court's record.
He stated that as per settled principle of law, the issue of delay has to be considered first and thereafter the court can pass any order on the application seeking interim relief or on merits of case In other words, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be decided first before entering into the merits of the case.
Elaborating this aspect of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner 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."
Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that matter requires consideration.
Learned Counsel for the State is directed to file response to the present petition within four weeks.
Issue notice, returnable at an early date.
Steps be taken within seven working days.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.02.2023 shall remain stayed, so far as it relates to staying the operation and implementation of the order(s) dated 15.02.2003 and 24.10.2009. This order of the Court would not be an impediment for concluding the proceedings of revision.
It is open for the revisional authority to proceed and decide the issue of condonation of delay as also the matter on merits, strictly in accordance with law and in terms of law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court, as early as possible.
List this case in the last week of April 2023.
Order Date :- 03.03.2023
Jyoti/-
