Allahabad High Court
Alakh Ram And 4 Others vs Board Of Revenue,U.P. Lucknow ... on 6 October, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:64693
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 654 of 2023
Petitioner :- Alakh Ram And 4 Others
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue,U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohan Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajeev Kumar Mishra Rudra
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State and Shri Rajeev Kumar Mishra Rudra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4.
2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have sought following main relief:
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 23.05.2023 passed by the opp. Party no. 1, in Revision No. 955/2023 (Computerized Case No. R2023086200955) filed U/S- 210, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, "Gomati Prasad Vs Mahesh Kumar & others", and the same is contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition."
3. Considering the issue involved the present petition, there is no need of counter affidavit.
4. Challenging the order dated 23.05.2023, learned counsel for the petitioners says that Revision No. 955/2023 (Computerized Case No. R2023086200955, Gomati Prasad Vs Mahesh Kumar & others) filed under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was allowed on merits without condoning the delay in preferring the revision though in the memo of revision itself, a prayer for condoning the delay was made.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further says that as per law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Prakash v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 107, the issue of condonation of delay has to be decided first, as such impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. In the judgment passed in the case of Ram Prakash (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court observed 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."
7. Law settled by Division Bench of this Court has not been refuted by learned counsels for the side opposite. It has also not been refuted rather it is apparent from memo of revision that the revision challenging the order dated 11.01.2022 was filed with some delay.
8. In the memo of revision itself, the revisionist(s)/opposite party nos. 3 & 4 made a prayer for condoning the delay and without dealing with the issue of condonation of delay, the revisional authority/Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow (opposite party no. 1) decided the revision on merits.
9. Taking note of the aforesaid admitted/undisputed fact as also law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Prakash (Supra), this Court finds that interference of this Court is required.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.05.2023, Annexure No. 1 to the petition, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow (opposite party no. 1) to decide the revision afresh in the light of the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment passed in the case of Ram Prakash (Supra) within a period of six months, as indicated under Para 458 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual.
11. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 6.10.2023
Mohit Singh/-
