High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 51 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2226 of 2022 Petitioner :- Wasique Ahmad Respondent :- Deputy Director Consolidation Azamgarh And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Singh,Onkar Nath Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aqeel Ahmad Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Legal Reasoning
It would apposite to refer the supervisory jurisdiction of Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of it's power under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act, who may after summoning the record examine the same to decide whether it was a fit case for exercise of revisional jurisdiction suo motu. Full Bench decision of this Court in the matter of Ramakant Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P. and others (A.I.R. 1975 Alld. 126) held that even if the revision is defective having been made beyond the prescribed period of limitation Deputy Directors of Consolidation should examine the record to exercise his powers suo motu. Paragraph No.17 of the case Ramakant Singh (supra) is quoted hereinunder:- "17. In view of the above observations, our answer to the question referred to this Full Bench is:-- After the record has been called for by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act he should examine the record to decide whether it was a fit case for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction suo motu. Such opinion shall have to be formed even where the application in revision moved by a party is defective having been made beyond the prescribed period of limitation or all the necessary parties have not been impleaded. If the Deputy Director of Consolidation finds that the case requires further hearing he shall give notice to all the necessary parties irrespective of whether they were or were not impleaded in the application and after giving them reasonable opportunity of hearing pass such orders as he thinks fit. Where the application in revision is not defective and is maintainable the exercise of revisional jurisdiction shall be at the instance of the Parties and not suo motu." In this conspectus, as above, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere in the order under challenge. There is no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the impugned order warranting the indulgence of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the instant writ petition, being misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, considering the long drawn litigation in the matter in question, the Deputy Director of Consolidation before whom revision is pending is hereby directed to decide the same expeditiously, preferably, within period of five months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is expected that the matter should be decided by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned without granting them unnecessary adjournments. Order Date :- 15.9.2022 Mini Digitally signed by MINI KANAUJIYA Date: 2022.09.24 12:30:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel representing respondent nos. 1 and 8 and Sri Aqeel Ahmad, learned counsel for the private respondent no.3. Short question involved in this petition as to whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh has justified in rejecting the application dated 16.7.2022 filed on behalf of the petitioner to hear the revision on the point of delay condonation first. The record reveals that Idarish (respondent no.2) and Gufran Ahmad (respondent no.3) have preferred the revision dated 15.3.2014 assailing the order dated 26.6.1998 with the prayer to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the revision. During the pendency of the revision, Wasique Ahmad (Petitioner) has moved an application dated 16.7.2022 (Annexure No.12) to decide the revision first on the point of delay condonation. The aforesaid application was rejected by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 01.08.2022, which is under challenge before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was an inordinate delay in filing the revision, therefore, point of limitation should be decided first before considering the revision on merits. It is further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally rejected the application in a very cursory manner without adverting to the plea taken by the petitioner, therefore, order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation should be quashed being illegal and unwarranted under the law. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents has contended that there is no bar under the law to decide the delay condonation application alongwith merits of the revision, therefore, both the points may be decided simultaneously and it will not affect the right of the parties. It is next contended that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is legal and suffers no infirmity, therefore, same is liable to be affirmed and present writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it reveals that, vide impugned order dated 1.8.2022, revisional court has rejected the application dated 16.7.2022 moved on behalf of the petitioner with an observation that same has been moved with intention to protract the litigation at the revisional stage. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also questioned the intention of the petitioner on the ground that he has filed an application dated 16.7.2022 at a belated stage after five years of filing of the revision. In my opinion, there is no error in the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in rejecting the application filed on behalf of the petitioner to hear the matter on delay condonation application first. No doubt that the matter of limitation relates to the jurisdiction of the court concerned, however, point of delay can be heard and decided on the same day alongwith the merits of the case. To avoid unnecessarily protraction of litigation and multiplicity of the proceedings arising out of same matter, it would be appropriate to consider the condonation of delay and merits of the original case on the same day. There is no bar under the law that the merits of the case and the delay condonation application could not be decided on the same day.