Mohd. Ahmad And Another vs Irshad Hussain And
2022 Latest Caselaw 321 UK

                     Office Notes, reports,
SL.                 orders or proceedings or
          Date                                                  COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                 directions and Registrar's
                     order with Signatures


      21.02.2022                                WPSS No. 2807 of 2018
                                                Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Pulak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Chandramauli Shah, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 & 2.

The petitioner before this Court is the opposite party in a Revision No. 52/01 of 2016-17 Mohd. Ahmad and another vs. Irshad Hussain and others. The revision was thus preferred by the respondent being aggrieved as against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer under Section 6(A) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, in Case No. 350B of 2016 Irshad Hussain and other vs. Nisar Ahmad, as passed on 23.05.2016.

                                                          The    revision    thus   preferred   by   the
                                                respondent    was admittedly accompanied with the

delay conodanation application, as would be apparent from Annexure-7, to the writ petition. Praying for condonation of delay which has chanced in preferring the revision against an order passed under Section 6(A) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, the petitioner submits that if the impugned revisional court's judgment of 29.06.2018, is taken into consideration, the revisional court while allowing the revision preferred by the respondents. In fact, the Deputy Director Consolidation, had ventured to decide the revision exclusively on its merit, without first condoning the delay, which has chanced in preferring the revision, while giving the challenge to the order of 23.05.2016, passed by the Consolidation Officer, which was preferred belatedly.

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is confined, on the ground that in the absence of there being any order of condoning the delay, in preferring the revision, the revision itself may not be taken to have matured, to be considered on merits by the revisional court, and that too without condoning the delay. Hence, the order impugned suffers from the apparent legal vices because the decision of the revision on its merit without condoning the delay, itself is not permissible under law because, no revision had matured to be considered and decided on merits. On this precise note itself, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned revisional court's judgement dated 29.06.2018 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Deputy Director Consolidation to reconsider the Revision No. 52/01 of 2016-17, Mohd. Ahmad and another vs. Irshad Hussain and others, on its merits, only after passing an appropriate order on the delay condonation application filed by the respondents along with a revision and then to proceed to decide the revision on its merits.

Subject to the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The revisional courts order is hereby quashed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 21.02.2022 Nahid