Smt. Kamla Mishra v. Ram Manorath

Heard Sri Anubhav Awasthi and Sri Saket Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner as also Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel and perused the records. In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents is dispensed with. The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:- "I. Issue, an order to quash the impugned order dated 30.09.2023 passed by the opposite party no. 3 i.e. Settlement Officer Consolidation, Barabanki, passed in Appeal No. 235 of 2008 "Smt. Kamla Mishra Versus Ram Manorath" (Contained as Annexure no. 2) in the interest of justice. II. Issue, an order to quash the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the opposite party no. 2 i.e. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Region- Ayodhya, District- Barabanki in Revision No. 423 of 2025 "Ram Manorath Versus Smt. Kamla Mishra" (Contained as Annexure no. 1), in the interest of justice. III. Issue an order or direction to the opposite party no. 2 i.e. Settlement Officer Consolidation, Barabanki to decide the appeal on delay first then on merit, in the interest of justice." Vide impugned order dated 30.09.2023 the opposite party no.3/Settlement Officer Consolidation, Barabanki (in short 'SOC') directed the parties to advance their submissions on the issue of maintainability and merits both. The order dated 30.09.2023 reads as under:- "आज पतत्रावलली पपेश हहई पपुकत्रार करत्राई गयली । पक्ष हत्राजजर आयपे उत्तरवत्रादली नपे पपोषणययतत्रा यबिन्दपु पर आपजत्त ककी हहै। अवलपोकन यकयत्रा पपोषणययतत्रा यवन्दपु व गपुणदपोष दपोनपो पर एक सत्राथ बिहस सपुनत्रा जत्रानत्रा उयचित प्रतलीत हपोतत्रा हहै। अततः पतत्रावलली वत्रास्तपे बिहस पपोषणलीयतत्रा व गपुणदपोष यद० 06.10.23 कपो पपेश हपो।" Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2023 passed by the SOC, the petitioner approached the revisional authority namely Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki (in short 'DDC') by means of revision registered as Revision No. 0490 of 2023 (Ram Manorath Versus Kamla Mishra) under Section 48(1) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'Act of 1953'). The DDC dismissed this revision vide order dated 10.03.2025. The relevant portion of order dated 10.03.2025 reads as under:- "ममनपे यनयत यतजथ पर उभय पक्ष कपे यवदत्रान अजधिवकत्रा कपे तकर्को कपो सपुनत्रा तथत्रा पतत्रावलली कत्रा अवलपोकन यकयत्रा। अवलपोकन सपे स्पष्ट हहै यक अपलीललीय न्यत्रायत्रालय दत्रारत्रा आदपेश यदनत्रानांक 30.09.2023 पत्राररत कर पतत्रावलली पपोषणलीयतत्रा एवनां गपुण दपोष पर बिहस हपेतपु यनयत ककी गयली हहै। उक आदपेश अनांतरवतर्ती प्रकक यत कत्रा हहै। अपलीललीय न्यत्रायत्रालय कपे समक्ष उभय पक्ष कपो तथ्य प्रस्तपुत कर अनपुतपोष प्रत्राप्त करनपे कत्रा सम्पपूणर अवसर यवद्यमत्रान हहै। आदपेश यदनत्रानांक 30.09.2023 अनांतरवतर्ती प्रकक यत हपोनपे कपे कत्रारण उसकपे यवरूद्ध यपोजजत यनगरत्रानली पपोषणलीय नहहीं हहै। यनगरत्रानलीकतत्रार दत्रारत्रा अपनपे कथन कपे समथरन मम यवजधि व्यवस्थत्रा आर०डली० 2023 (160, पपेज ननां० 191, यवजय नरत्रायन बिनत्राम उप सनांचित्रालक चिकबिन्दली बिस्तली व आर०डली० 2007(102)/248 प्रस्तपुत यकयत्रा गयत्रा हहै , जजसकत्रा यवचित्रारण अपलीललीय न्यत्रायत्रालय मम यकयपे जत्रानपे कत्रा यवकल्प उपलब्धि हहै। आदपेश उक पररप्रपेक्ष्य यनगरत्रानली रत्राममनपोरथ यनरस्त ककी जत्रातली हहै। उभय पक्ष कपो यनदरयशत यकयत्रा जत्रातत्रा हहै यक वह बिन्दपोबिस्त अजधिकत्रारली चिकबिन्दली (न्यत्राययक) कपे समक्ष यदनत्रानांक 25.03.2025 कपो उपसस्थत हपो । पतत्रावलली बित्राद आवश्यक कत्रायरवत्राहली रत्राजस्व अयभलपेखत्रागत्रार मम अयभसनांयचित हपो।" To the view of this Court, the subject matter of the present petition relates to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment passed in the case of Ram Prakash v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 107, according to which the issue of condonation of delay should be decided first, relevant portion of which on reproduction reads 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." Considering the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order and without entering into the merits of the case, the present application is disposed of with direction to the SOC to proceed in the matter strictly in terms of observations made by this Court in the case of Ram Prakash (Supra). It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Jyoti/-

Heard Sri Anubhav Awasthi and Sri Saket Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner as also Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel and perused the records. In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents is dispensed with. The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:- "I. Issue, an order to quash the impugned order dated 30.09.2023 passed by the opposite party no. 3 i.e. Settlement Officer Consolidation, Barabanki, passed in Appeal No. 235 of 2008 "Smt. Kamla Mishra Versus Ram Manorath" (Contained as Annexure no. 2) in the interest of justice. II. Issue, an order to quash the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the opposite party no. 2 i.e. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Region- Ayodhya, District- Barabanki in Revision No. 423 of 2025 "Ram Manorath Versus Smt. Kamla Mishra" (Contained as Annexure no. 1), in the interest of justice. III. Issue an order or direction to the opposite party no. 2 i.e. Settlement Officer Consolidation, Barabanki to decide the appeal on delay first then on merit, in the interest of justice." Vide impugned order dated 30.09.2023 the opposite party no.3/Settlement Officer Consolidation, Barabanki (in short 'SOC') directed the parties to advance their submissions on the issue of maintainability and merits both. The order dated 30.09.2023 reads as under:- "आज पतत्रावलली पपेश हहई पपुकत्रार करत्राई गयली । पक्ष हत्राजजर आयपे उत्तरवत्रादली नपे पपोषणययतत्रा यबिन्दपु पर आपजत्त ककी हहै। अवलपोकन यकयत्रा पपोषणययतत्रा यवन्दपु व गपुणदपोष दपोनपो पर एक सत्राथ बिहस सपुनत्रा जत्रानत्रा उयचित प्रतलीत हपोतत्रा हहै। अततः पतत्रावलली वत्रास्तपे बिहस पपोषणलीयतत्रा व गपुणदपोष यद० 06.10.23 कपो पपेश हपो।" Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2023 passed by the SOC, the petitioner approached the revisional authority namely Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki (in short 'DDC') by means of revision registered as Revision No. 0490 of 2023 (Ram Manorath Versus Kamla Mishra) under Section 48(1) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'Act of 1953'). The DDC dismissed this revision vide order dated 10.03.2025. The relevant portion of order dated 10.03.2025 reads as under:- "ममनपे यनयत यतजथ पर उभय पक्ष कपे यवदत्रान अजधिवकत्रा कपे तकर्को कपो सपुनत्रा तथत्रा पतत्रावलली कत्रा अवलपोकन यकयत्रा। अवलपोकन सपे स्पष्ट हहै यक अपलीललीय न्यत्रायत्रालय दत्रारत्रा आदपेश यदनत्रानांक 30.09.2023 पत्राररत कर पतत्रावलली पपोषणलीयतत्रा एवनां गपुण दपोष पर बिहस हपेतपु यनयत ककी गयली हहै। उक आदपेश अनांतरवतर्ती प्रकक यत कत्रा हहै। अपलीललीय न्यत्रायत्रालय कपे समक्ष उभय पक्ष कपो तथ्य प्रस्तपुत कर अनपुतपोष प्रत्राप्त करनपे कत्रा सम्पपूणर अवसर यवद्यमत्रान हहै। आदपेश यदनत्रानांक 30.09.2023 अनांतरवतर्ती प्रकक यत हपोनपे कपे कत्रारण उसकपे यवरूद्ध यपोजजत यनगरत्रानली पपोषणलीय नहहीं हहै। यनगरत्रानलीकतत्रार दत्रारत्रा अपनपे कथन कपे समथरन मम यवजधि व्यवस्थत्रा आर०डली० 2023 (160, पपेज ननां० 191, यवजय नरत्रायन बिनत्राम उप सनांचित्रालक चिकबिन्दली बिस्तली व आर०डली० 2007(102)/248 प्रस्तपुत यकयत्रा गयत्रा हहै , जजसकत्रा यवचित्रारण अपलीललीय न्यत्रायत्रालय मम यकयपे जत्रानपे कत्रा यवकल्प उपलब्धि हहै। आदपेश उक पररप्रपेक्ष्य यनगरत्रानली रत्राममनपोरथ यनरस्त ककी जत्रातली हहै। उभय पक्ष कपो यनदरयशत यकयत्रा जत्रातत्रा हहै यक वह बिन्दपोबिस्त अजधिकत्रारली चिकबिन्दली (न्यत्राययक) कपे समक्ष यदनत्रानांक 25.03.2025 कपो उपसस्थत हपो । पतत्रावलली बित्राद आवश्यक कत्रायरवत्राहली रत्राजस्व अयभलपेखत्रागत्रार मम अयभसनांयचित हपो।" To the view of this Court, the subject matter of the present petition relates to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment passed in the case of Ram Prakash v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 107, according to which the issue of condonation of delay should be decided first, relevant portion of which on reproduction reads 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." Considering the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order and without entering into the merits of the case, the present application is disposed of with direction to the SOC to proceed in the matter strictly in terms of observations made by this Court in the case of Ram Prakash (Supra). It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Jyoti/-