Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sunita Agarwal vs Board Of Revenue Thru. Chairman, ... on 21 November, 2024
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:77082
Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1127 of 2024
Petitioner :- Smt. Sunita Agarwal
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue Thru. Chairman, Lucknow And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Awasthi,Prabhat Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.4 i.e. Gaon Sabha Naya Gaon, Tehsil Vilaspur, District Rampur through its Pradhan.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is decided at the admission stage.
3. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 18.01.2024 and 01.04.2024 passed by Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad and the order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the revisional order dated 18.01.2024 passed under Section 333 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1950'), the order dated 01.04.2024 for recalling the order dated 18.01.2024, preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and the order dated 23.04.2024, whereby the revision against the impugned order dated 01.04.2024 has been rejected.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that earlier, the plot no.84 was entered in the name of Gaon Sabha in the revenue records and plot no.80 was entered into name of respondent no.5. The respondent no.5 had moved an application for exchange of a Minjumla Gata No.80 with Gata No.84 by moving an application under Section 161 of the Act, 1950. The said application preferred by the respondent no.5 has been allowed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate by passing an order dated 28.04.2012 and accordingly, the names have been entered in the revenue records.
6. It is further submitted that against the order dated 28.04.2012, a revision was preferred by any some third person who had nothing to do with these Gata nos. and the same was dismissed on 17.07.2013. After the dismissal of the revision, the recall application was preferred by the Gaon/ Gram Sabha for recalling the order dated 28.04.2012, which was dismissed on 18.02.2015. After the dismissal of these proceedings, the respondent no.5 by a registered sale deed had sold half of the portion of the plot no.84 in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, the name of the petitioner has been mutated in the revenue records and in support of his submission, learned counsel for petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Khatauni, which has been enclosed alongwith the writ petition.
7. After about 12 years the State has preferred a revision under Section 333 of the Act, 1950 alongwith delay condonation application. The revision has been filed in January, 2024 and the revisional authority has decided the same within 15 days or 17 days of filing of the same without condoning the delay, without issuing any notice to the petitioner or the respondent no.5 and without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
8. It is further submitted that against the said order the respondent no.5 has filed a recall application, which was rejected by order dated 01.04.2024 against which a revision was preferred by the petitioner, which was also rejected by impugned order dated 23.04.2024 and feeling aggrieved by these orders, the present writ petition has been filed.
9. It is further submitted that it is a settled law that without condoning the delay no order could be passed and in support of his submission, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Noharlal Verma versus District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Jagdalpur reported in (2008) 14 SCC 445 and the relevant para 32 is quoted herein below:-
"32. Now, limitation goes to the root of the matter. If a suit, appeal or application is barred by limitation, a court or an adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction, power or authority to entertain such suit, appeal or application and to decide it on merits."
10. Another judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Prakash versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and others the relevant para 20 is quoted herein below:-
"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."
11. And lastly, placed reliance upon the judgment dated 24.05.2023 passed in Writ-B No.433 of 2023 (Bal Mukund versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya and others).
12. On the other hand, learned State Counsel and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha are unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the judgments relied by the learned counsel for petitioner.
13. Considering the aforesaid legal preposition as also the aforesaid undisputed facts of the case, the orders impugned dated 18.01.2024, 01.04.2024 and 23.04.2024 are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no.2 i.e. Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad for decision afresh. The petitioner is at liberty to prefer the objection to the application seeking condonation of delay.
14. It is expected from the respondent no.2 to dispose of the application seeking condonation of delay first in view of the law laid down in the judgments, referred above and shall dispose of the matter as early as possible.
15. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 21.11.2024
Mohd. Sharif
