Allahabad High Court
Devanti Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 7 November, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:174895
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36593 of 2024
Petitioner :- Devanti Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Adya Prasad Tewari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil: Sadar, District: Gorakhpur u/s 209(J), U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in Case No. 31822 of 2022 being Computerized Case No. T202205310331822 Chandrama Singh Vs. Vishwanath (Contained in Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition).
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of manamus commanding the Tehsildar Sadar, District: Gorakhpur to process and decided the limitation as well as maintainability of Restoration Application dated 25.08.2022 before proceeding to hear and decide restoration application dated 25.08.2024."
3. Brief facts of the case are that an application dated 25.08.2022 was filed by the respondent no. 3 for recalling the earlier order dated 15.04.2008. The petitioner filed an application along with delay condonation application. The petitioner moved an application on 01.10.2024 praying that since the application for restoration has been filed with delay of 14 years and more, the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act will be decided first before considering the restoration application on merits. On the said application the court below has passed the order on 01.10.2024 fixing 07.10.2024 for considering the application on maintainability as well as the restoration application, which is impugned in the present writ petition.
4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the application filed by the respondent no. 3 was filed after a lapse of 14 years, the delay has to be condoned first only then the restoration application can be considered. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment passed by this Court in case of Ram Prakash v. Deputy Director of Consolidation reported in 2022 (155) RD 309 wherein this Court has taken a view that (though the said reference was made in proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act) an application seeking condonation of delay has to be decided first before the appeal taken for hearing on merits.
5. In view of the legal position, I am not issuing notices to respondent no. 3 and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2 to decide the application moved by the petitioner on 01.10.2024 first before proceeding to consider the restoration application filed by respondent no. 3.
Order Date :- 7.11.2024
Ved Prakash
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
