Allahabad High Court
Shivaharsha @ Shiv Harakh And Another vs Sub Divisional Officer, Lambhua, ... on 26 March, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17208
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2524 of 2025
Petitioner :- Shivaharsha @ Shiv Harakh And Another
Respondent :- Sub Divisional Officer, Lambhua, Tehsil Lambhua Distt. Sultanpur And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Nath Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.
3. In the instant petition following main relief has been sought:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the opposite party No. 1 i. e. Sub Divisional Officer, Lambhua, Tehsil-Lambhua, District-Sultanpur in Case No. 1093/2025, computerized case No. T202504680301093, under Section-210 of U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901, Smt. Heeravati and others Versus Shiv Harakh and others, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition."
4. It is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the Appeal No.1093/2025, computerized case No. T202504680301093 (Smt. Heeravati and others Versus Shiv Harakh and others) under Section 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, filed by private opposite parties interim order was passed on 10.02.2025.
5. Challenging the order dated 10.02.2025, learned Counsel for the petitioner says thatAppeal No.1093/2025, computerized case No. T202504680301093 (Smt. Heeravati and others Versus Shiv Harakh and others) under Section 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, was filed alongwith an application for condonation of delay and without condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, the interim protection has been provided i.e. order to maintain status-quo has been passed.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further says that as per law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Prakash vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi & Others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 107, decided on 03.02.2022 as also to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Noharlal Verma vs. Dist. Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. reported in (2008) 14 SCC 445, the issue of condonation of delay has to be decided first, as such impugned order is liable to be set aside.
7. 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.
22.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question referred to the Division Bench that an application seeking condonation of delay has to be decided first before the appeal is taken up for hearing on merits. However, it can be on the same day and there is no requirement of adjourning the hearing of appeal on merits after acceptance of the application seeking condonation of delay."
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Noharlal Verma Versus District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. reported in (2008) 14 SCC 445, observed as under:-
"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."
9. The prayer is to allow the petition.
10. Having considered the aforesaid as also paragraph no. 492 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual, as per which an application seeking vacation of ex-parte interim order can be preferred, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an application seeking vacation of interim order on the ground(s) available to him including the ground based upon the judgment passed in the case of Ram Prakash (Supra) and Noharlal Verma (Supra), which shall be decided by the Appellate Authority namely Sub Divisional Officer, Lambua, District Sultanpur, within 30 days from the next date fixed in the case.
11. The Appellate Authority shall also make all endeavour to conclude the proceedings within six months, if possible and if there is no legal impediment in this regard, which is the period prescribed under Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 made under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with para 458(2) of U.P. Revenue Court Manual, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation.
12. Till the disposal of the application seeking vacation of interim order, the property in issue, shall not be alienated or transferred or no charge shall be created over the same.
13. To the aforesaid extent the impugned order dated 10.02.2025, is modified.
14. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.3.2025
Jyoti/-
