Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Through Collector ... vs Al Nabi And Others on 5 October, 2023
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:64177
Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3005221 of 1990
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Through Collector District Hardoi
Respondent :- Al Nabi And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- C S C
Counsel for Respondent :- Umesh Kumar Srivastava,Nirmit Srivastava
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State-petitioner as well as Sri Nirmit Srivastava, learned counsel for private respondents.
2. Present writ petition challenges the appellate order dated 18.10.1989 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow thereby rejecting the appeal preferred by the State against the order of the prescribed authority dated 05.07.1985.
3. The said appeal has been rejected solely on the ground of delay. In the impugned order, it has been stated that the prescribed authority had passed an order dated 05.07.1985 thereby complying with the order of the appellate authority and reducing surplus area from 8-12-19 to 6-16-5 and also declaring the surplus area only from Gata No. 36M as directed by the District Judge in his order dated 30.08.1985.
4. The appeal was filed with the delay of more than two years. The said appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The appellate authority has noticed that the appeal as per the Act of 1960 was to be filed within a period of 30 days and the order of the prescribed authority dated 05.07.1985 was very well in the knowledge of the State and a decision was also taken to file an appeal in the said case but subsequently there is no explanation for the delay of more than 2 years and 5 months in filing the said appeal. In the said circumstances, the appellate authority has refused to condone the delay and rejected the appeal.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the appellate authority was duty bound to consider the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay and further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case ofOffice of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media India", AIR 2012 SC 1506,held as under: -
"12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us."
6. He further submits that usually time is taken for processing the papers and filing an appeal consequently limitation should have been construed and the appellate authority has illegally denied to accept the application for condonation of delay and accordingly prayed for setting aside the appellate order and further prayed that the matter may be remitted to the appellate authority to decide the same.
7. Learned counsel for respondent has opposed the writ petition and submits that apart from the question of limitation the order which was appealed by the petitioner was passed by the prescribed authority merely complying with the appellate order dated 30.08.1985. He submits that order of the District Judge dated 30.08.1985 became final and was never challenged by the State before the High Court or any other forum. He further submits that by means of the order dated 05.07.1985, the prescribed authority has merely complied with the order of the High Court dated 10.05.1982 where the High Court has held as under :-
"As noted above, the surplus area declared by the prescribed authority was 17 bighas 15 biswas and 10 biswansis. Out of this the petitioner is entitled to benefit in respect of 11 bighas 4 biswas 15 biswansis in view of the aforesaid findings in respect of points 2, 3, 4. Thus the total surplus area comes to only 6 bighas 5 biswas and 15 biswansi.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the orders (Annexures 4 and 5 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed and the prescribed authority is directed to pass afresh order in accordance with law and in the light of the findings given above."
8. This order was passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 991 of 1981 (illegible) filed by the private respondent where this Court has dealt into entire factual matrix of the controversy and itself determined the surplus area and set aside the order of the prescribed authority. While allowing the writ petition, the matter was remitted to the prescribed authority for compliance and pass a fresh order in accordance with law in light of the findings given by the High Court.
9. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the prescribed authority had not applied its mind nor was under a duty to pass a fresh order but merely complying with the direction of the High Court which he has satisfied, he has done while passing the order dated 05.07.1985.
10. In light of the above, this Court is satisfied that firstly there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 18.10.1989 passed by the Additional Commissioner rejecting the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of limitation and secondly this Court has satisfied that the prescribed authority while passing the order dated 05.07.1985 had merely complied with the order of this Court dated 10.05.1982 and accordingly even on merits no case for interference is made out. It has further been noticed that order dated 10.05.1982 passed by the High Court has attained finality and is binding on all the authorities.
11. In the aforesaid circumstances, no interference is called for in the present impugned order. The writ petition is without merits and is accordinglydismissed.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 5.10.2023
Ravi/
