Allahabad High Court
Smt Maya Devi And Others vs State Of U.P. on 1 February, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:17779
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 89 of 2024
Petitioner :- Smt Maya Devi And Others
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Harsh Vikram,Harsh Vikram
Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar Pandey,C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Harsh Vikram, the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1, 2 and 3. Notice on behalf of Respondent 4 has been accepted by Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey. However, neither he nor anyone on his behalf is present to oppose the present writ petition even in revised call.
2. Perused the record.
3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the judgment and order dated 31.03.2023 passed by Respondent 2, Sub Divisional Officer (Judicial), Gunnaur, District-Sambhal in Case No. 1656 of 2023 (State Vs. Mahendra and Others), under Sections 31/32 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and the order dated 06.09.2023 passed by Respondent 3, Commissioner Moradabad Division Moradabad in Revision No. 1535 of 2023 (Mahendra and Others Vs. State and Others), under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
4. Record shows that Tehsildar-Gunnau submitted his report dated 11.06.2022 on the basis of which, proceedings under Section 31/32 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 came to be initiated. Ultimately, Respondent 2, Sub Divisional Officer (Judicial), Gunnaur, District-Sambhal vide his order dated 31.03.2023 allowed aforementioned case and consequently, the land in dispute i.e. Survey Plot No. 27 area 0.152 hectare and Survey Plot No. 28-Kha area 0.153 hectare i.e. two plots area 0.963 hectare was directed to be recorded in category 5(3)Ga and the name of the petitioners were directed to be expunged.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the above order dated 31.03.2023, petitioners preferred time barred revision. Along with memo of revision, petitioners also filed a delay condonation application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision. However, Respondent 3, Commissioner Moradabad Division Moradabad without considering the cause shown for seeking condonation of delay relying upon the merits of the case, dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that while considering delay condonation application, Court/Authorities cannot consider merits of the case. The sufficiency/truthfulness of the cause shown for seeking condonation of delay alone has to be considered while deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Since in the presence case, Respondent 3, Commissioner Moradabad Division Moradabad i.e. revisional authority has departed from aforesaid established principle, consequently, the order dated 06.09.2023 passed by Respondent 3, Commissioner Moradabad Division Moradabad is not only illegal, arbitrary but also in excess of jurisdiction. Consequently, the same is liable to be quashed and the matter is liable to be directed to the revisional authority for consideration of delay condonation application afresh.
7. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 3 has opposed the present writ petition. However, he could not dislodge the legal submission urged by the learned counsel for petitioners with reference to the record at this stage.
8. Having heard, the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the revisional authority i.e. Respondent 3, Commissioner Moradabad Division Moradabad has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner on merits as well as delay. Procedure so adopted by the revisional authority is manifestly illegal inasmuch as, at the time of considering the delay condonation application, the merits of the case cannot be considered. It is only the truthfullness of the cause/sufficiency of the cause shown for seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision which alone was required to be considered by the revisional authority at the time of considering the delay condonation application. As such, the procedure adopted by the revisional authority is wholly illegal.
9. As a result, the present writ petition succeeds in part and is liable to be partly allowed.
10. It is accordingly partly allowed.
11. The impugned order dated 06.09.2023 passed by Respondent 3, Commissioner Moradabad Division Moradabad in Revision No. 1535 of 2023 (Mahendra and Others Vs. State and Others), under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed.
12. Respondent 3, Commissioner Moradabad Division Moradabad first decide the delay condonation application in the light of the material relied upon by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay and in case, the delay condonation application is allowed only then he shall proceed to consider the case on merits. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of certified copy of this order.
13. Cost made easy.
Order Date :- 1.2.2024
Vinay
