Allahabad High Court
Hansraj Yadav And 4 Others vs Commissioner Azamgarh Division ... on 8 May, 2023
Bench: Kshitij Shailendra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:100100
Court No. - 52
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8273 of 2021
Petitioner :- Hansraj Yadav And 4 Others
Respondent :- Commissioner Azamgarh Division And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Devendra Yadav,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla,Shivendra Nath Singh
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri S.N. Singh, learned counsel representing respondent nos.3 to 11 and perused the record.
2. This petition has been filed challenging the order impugned dated 30.1.2020 passed by the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh.
3. By the said order, the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh has stayed effect and operation of the order dated 18.8.1987 till disposal of revision with a further direction to the parties to maintain status quo. By the same order, the revisionists i.e. private respondents herein, have been accorded benefit of Section 5 in filing the revision.
4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that on the basis of proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, an order was passed in favour of the petitioners on 18.8.1987, and after a period of 33 years, the private respondents filed a revision against the said order without disclosing satisfactory reason for condonation of long delay. The submission is that as per law settled to the effect that before condoning delay, opportunity of hearing should be accorded to opposite parties in whose favour the order under challenge exists in the present case, the Commissioner has committed a jurisdictional error in first condoning the delay and thereafter issuing notice to the concerned parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of "Ram Prakash Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others (2022) 3 All LJ 524" in which this Court has laid down that before proceeding on merits, delay must be condoned by assigning cogent reasons.
5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for private respondents have submitted that reason for delay has been given in memo of revision itself, and therefore, no illegality has been committed by the Commissioner in condoning the delay.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the order is quite cryptic in nature. It mentions that file has been taken up and on the point of delay as well as admission and stay, learned counsel for the revisionists i.e. private respondents as well as State counsel were heard and considering the contents of the affidavit filed by the revisionists, delay in filing the revision is condoned, the revision is admitted and the operation of the order dated 18.8.1987 is stayed and further the parties are directed to maintain status quo.
7. I find that impugned order is contrary to the principles of law settled to the aforesaid effect. The petitioners in whose favour the order dated 18.8.1987 was passed 33 years ago, were not given any opportunity to oppose or file objections against delay condonation matter.
8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.
9. The order impugned dated 30.1.2020 passed by the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh is set aside.
10. Matter is remitted to the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh and the file of the aforesaid revision is restored to the original status that is to say that delay condonation matter shall be considered afresh after providing full opportunity of hearing to the parties, who are opposite parties in the said revision and after considering their objections.
11. Since the matter is quite old, the delay condonation application shall be disposed off within a period of three months from the date of filing a certified copy of this order.
12. There will not be any need to issue notice to the petitioners. Their presence before this Court as petitioners would be deemed to be sufficient notice on delay condonation matter.
13. The petitioners are allowed to file objections against the delay condonation aspect within a period of one month from today.
14. Allowed with the aforesaid directions.
Order Date :- 8.5.2023/Anil K. Sharma
