Chheda Lal Jt. Director Consolidation And Others v. Counsel for

1. Heard Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel and Shri Abhishek Kumar Saroj, learned counsel for the legal heirs of the deceased-petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State and Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the legal heirs of the deceased-respondent No.3.

2. Counter affidavit was served on 05.12.2005 to the petitioner. Till date rejoinder affidavit has not been filed. The Court declines to grant further time to the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit. The matter is being heard on merits.

3. The respondent No.3 carried the order dated 27.12.1985 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Fatehpur in appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Fatehpur. The appeal was filed on 28.05.1994. By the order dated 24.08.1999, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Fatehpur has condoned the delay and posted the matter for hearing on merits. While condoning the delay the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Fatehpur has noticed the explanation tendered by the respondent No.3.

4. The impugned order dated 24.08.1999 passed by the appellate court records that when the possession of the plot was made over, the respondent no.3 found he was given the area lesser than his entitlement. The respondent No.3 accordingly made an 2 WRIB No. 51750 of 1999 application before the consolidation authorities for demarcation of the land as per law. However, despite repeated efforts for conduct of the demarcation exercise was not carried out by the consolidation authorities.

5. Finally aggrieved the inaction of the authorities on the pleas of the respondent No.3, he submitted an application on 04.04.1994 and 02.05.1994 at the janata adalat. Later on 18.05.1995 the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Fatehpur inspected the site and carried out the demarcation. At the conclusion of the Assistant the demarcation proceedings Consolidation Officer, Fatehpur informed the respondent no.3 that the area of the gata no. 614 had been reduced by 650 sq. meters. The other gatas of the respondent No.3 were found to be in the order.

6. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 filed an application for a copy of the khatauni on 27.05.1994 when he was informed by the lekhpal that the area had been altered by the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Fatehpur. In this manner the respondent No.3 got knowledge of the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Fatehpur which was adverse to him. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 promptly filed the appeal alongwith the delay condonation application. For the above reasons the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Fatehpur found the cause for the delay to be sufficient and allowed the delay condonation application. The appeal was also posted for hearing on merits by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Fatehpur by the impugned order dated 24.08.1999.

7. The order dated 24.08.1999 was taken in revision before the revising court by the petitioner. The revising court by the impugned order dated 26.10.1999 upheld the reasons for condonation of delay and found that the interest of justice will be served by remitting the matter to the SOC for a decision on merits. The challenge to the appellate order was invalidated. 3 WRIB No. 51750 of 1999

8. A perusal of the order passed by the authorities below clearly show that the respondent No.3 was always diligent about his cause. The records bear out that the respondent No.3 had made repeated pleas before the consolidation authorities when he found that the area of his holding had been wrongfully decreased.

9. After a long while the consolidation authorities finally conducted the demarcation as per law. The respondent no.3 promptly filed an appeal after he was informed about the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Fatehpur when he was given a copy of the khatauni.

10. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that at times state authorities are not particularly responsive to the pleas of litigants. There was nothing unnatural in the explanation for delay tendered by the respondent no.3. Infact the respondent no. 3 was most diligent towards the rights and availment of his legal remedies.

11. In this wake this Court has no hesitation to hold that the courts below have correctly found that there were no laches on part of the respondent no. 3. The claim of the respondent No.3 to decide his substantive rights cannot be outed on the ground of delay. The endeavour of the courts should be to decide the substantive rights on merits instead of closing the doors of justice to litigants on technical grounds.

12. There is another aspect to the matter. In rural areas at many times people often do not have full knowledge of their rights and at times are reluctant to engage in litigation at the drop of hat as it proves to be a drain on their resources. In the instant case, the respondent No.3 had repeatedly approached the authorities and it is only when he was pushed to the wall that he gave a formal application at the janata complaint diwas. The delay was caused on account of inaction on the part of the respondents-authorities rather than lack of vigilance on part of the respondent No.3. The 4 WRIB No. 51750 of 1999 respondent No.3 cannot be penalized for the fault of the respondents authorities.

13. In the wake of preceding discussion, this Court finds that the impugned orders have been passed in accordance with law and meet the ends of justice. No interference is called for in the impugned orders.

14. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.

15. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Fatehpur is directed to decide the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified cop of this order.

16. All the parties are directed to cooperate in the hearing of the appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Fatehpur. September 24, 2025 Ashish Tripathi (Ajay Bhanot,J.) ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel and Shri Abhishek Kumar Saroj, learned counsel for the legal heirs of the deceased-petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State and Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the legal heirs of the deceased-respondent No.3.

2. Counter affidavit was served on 05.12.2005 to the petitioner. Till date rejoinder affidavit has not been filed. The Court declines to grant further time to the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit. The matter is being heard on merits.

3. The respondent No.3 carried the order dated 27.12.1985 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Fatehpur in appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Fatehpur. The appeal was filed on 28.05.1994. By the order dated 24.08.1999, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Fatehpur has condoned the delay and posted the matter for hearing on merits. While condoning the delay the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Fatehpur has noticed the explanation tendered by the respondent No.3.

4. The impugned order dated 24.08.1999 passed by the appellate court records that when the possession of the plot was made over, the respondent no.3 found he was given the area lesser than his entitlement. The respondent No.3 accordingly made an 2 WRIB No. 51750 of 1999 application before the consolidation authorities for demarcation of the land as per law. However, despite repeated efforts for conduct of the demarcation exercise was not carried out by the consolidation authorities.

5. Finally aggrieved the inaction of the authorities on the pleas of the respondent No.3, he submitted an application on 04.04.1994 and 02.05.1994 at the janata adalat. Later on 18.05.1995 the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Fatehpur inspected the site and carried out the demarcation. At the conclusion of the Assistant the demarcation proceedings Consolidation Officer, Fatehpur informed the respondent no.3 that the area of the gata no. 614 had been reduced by 650 sq. meters. The other gatas of the respondent No.3 were found to be in the order.

6. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 filed an application for a copy of the khatauni on 27.05.1994 when he was informed by the lekhpal that the area had been altered by the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Fatehpur. In this manner the respondent No.3 got knowledge of the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Fatehpur which was adverse to him. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 promptly filed the appeal alongwith the delay condonation application. For the above reasons the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Fatehpur found the cause for the delay to be sufficient and allowed the delay condonation application. The appeal was also posted for hearing on merits by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Fatehpur by the impugned order dated 24.08.1999.

7. The order dated 24.08.1999 was taken in revision before the revising court by the petitioner. The revising court by the impugned order dated 26.10.1999 upheld the reasons for condonation of delay and found that the interest of justice will be served by remitting the matter to the SOC for a decision on merits. The challenge to the appellate order was invalidated. 3 WRIB No. 51750 of 1999

8. A perusal of the order passed by the authorities below clearly show that the respondent No.3 was always diligent about his cause. The records bear out that the respondent No.3 had made repeated pleas before the consolidation authorities when he found that the area of his holding had been wrongfully decreased.

9. After a long while the consolidation authorities finally conducted the demarcation as per law. The respondent no.3 promptly filed an appeal after he was informed about the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Fatehpur when he was given a copy of the khatauni.

10. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that at times state authorities are not particularly responsive to the pleas of litigants. There was nothing unnatural in the explanation for delay tendered by the respondent no.3. Infact the respondent no. 3 was most diligent towards the rights and availment of his legal remedies.

11. In this wake this Court has no hesitation to hold that the courts below have correctly found that there were no laches on part of the respondent no. 3. The claim of the respondent No.3 to decide his substantive rights cannot be outed on the ground of delay. The endeavour of the courts should be to decide the substantive rights on merits instead of closing the doors of justice to litigants on technical grounds.

12. There is another aspect to the matter. In rural areas at many times people often do not have full knowledge of their rights and at times are reluctant to engage in litigation at the drop of hat as it proves to be a drain on their resources. In the instant case, the respondent No.3 had repeatedly approached the authorities and it is only when he was pushed to the wall that he gave a formal application at the janata complaint diwas. The delay was caused on account of inaction on the part of the respondents-authorities rather than lack of vigilance on part of the respondent No.3. The 4 WRIB No. 51750 of 1999 respondent No.3 cannot be penalized for the fault of the respondents authorities.

13. In the wake of preceding discussion, this Court finds that the impugned orders have been passed in accordance with law and meet the ends of justice. No interference is called for in the impugned orders.

14. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.

15. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Fatehpur is directed to decide the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified cop of this order.

16. All the parties are directed to cooperate in the hearing of the appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Fatehpur. September 24, 2025 Ashish Tripathi (Ajay Bhanot,J.) ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad