Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1362/2012 on 23 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1362 of 2012
BETWEEN:
Narendra @ Neki Ram. .....Petitioner
(By Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate)
AND:
Deputy Director of
Consolidation and another. ...Respondents
(By Mr. I.P. Kohli, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent
no. 1 & Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht, Advocate, holding brief of
Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, Advocate for respondent no. 2)
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is challenging the order dated
27.04.2012 passed by Deputy Director,
Consolidation/ Additional Collector, Haridwar in
Revision No. 09/2009-10. By the said order, the
revision filed by Saddique under Section 48 of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was allowed
and the matter was remanded back to Settlement
Officer, Consolidation to re-consider application for
condonation of delay filed by petitioner with his
appeal, after hearing all the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that by the impugned order, Deputy
Director, Consolidation had himself condoned the
delay of about 9 months in filing the revision by
Mr. Saddique, therefore, the order of remand
passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation, only on
the question of delay, is unsustainable.
3. Per contra, Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht,
learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2
submits that there was delay of more than eight
years in the appeal filed by petitioner and there
was no satisfactory explanation for such inordinate
delay yet the Settlement Officer condoned the
delay without indicating any valid reason,
therefore, learned Deputy Director, Consolidation
was justified in remanding the matter back to the
Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
4. This Court is not inclined to interfere
with the order of remand, especially when the
remand is limited only to the question of
condonation of delay. Thus, there is no scope for
interference with the impugned order passed by
Deputy Director, Consolidation.
5. However, having regard to the fact that
the order of the Appellate Court passed on
27.12.2008 was set-aside by the Revisional Court
on 27.04.2012, the Settlement Officer,
Consolidation is directed to decide the matter in
terms of the remand order dated 27.04.2012, as
early as possible, but not later than four months
from the date of presentation of certified copy of
this order.
6. It goes without saying that the
Settlement Officer, Consolidation shall consider
the delay condonation application of the petitioner
on merits, without being prejudiced by any
observation made in this order or the judgment
rendered by Deputy Director of Consolidation.
7. The writ petition is, accordingly,
disposed of.
8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Navin
