Ambikeshwar v. Smt Malti Devi And Others), the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti has

1. Heard Sri Ram Prasad Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents and Sri Santosh Kumar Dwivedi, advocate, who has filed Power on behalf of the respondent No. 3.

2. The dispute raised in the present petition pertains to Gata No. 3533M and according to the petitioner, she had purchased the same from the father of respondent No. 3 namely Chhabilal through a registered sale deed dated 14.01.1999 and even the mutation has been carried out in her name on 28.05.2003. It is after a lapse of 19 years that an appeal against the said order has been preferred by respondent No. 3 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti. The said appeal was admittedly filed after a lapse of 19 years along with an application for condonation of delay. By means of order dated 03.04.2025, passed in Case No. 1255/2022, Computerized Case No.202254086200001255 (Ambikeshwar Vs. Smt Malti Devi And Others), the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti has condoned the delay. While condoning the delay, he has recorded the grounds taken by the respondent No. 3 stating therein that the land situated at Gata No. 3533M was sold to the petitioner but apart from mutating the said Gata in her name even the Gata situated at 3543 which was not sold by the father of the respondent No. 3 in favour of the petitioner was also wrongly mutated in his name, accordingly, challenged the mutation entry in favour of the petitioner. The Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti has recorded that in case the application is dismissed on ground of mutation then the petitioner shall forever be barred from taking his claim with regard to the disputed land and accordingly allowed the application at a cost of Rs.1,000/-.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2025 had filed a revision before the Deputy Director Consolidation, Shrawasti. He has recorded that he did not find any error in the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti dated 03.04.2025 in the light of the fact that the parties will have adequate opportunity to place their version before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti and also that order would be passed after duly hearing the parties and accordingly rejected the application. The petitioner submitted that the orders condoning the delay are illegal and arbitrary considering the fact that the delay of 19 years is an extraordinary period of delay and no cogent explanation was given with regard to the condonation of delay and accordingly prayed for setting aside the impugned orders.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the private respondents continue to be in possession of the said land till such time as they were sought to be dispossessed of and it is only then they came to know that mutation entry has wrongly been allowed in favour of the petitioner and in these circumstances, he moved an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti and submits that the delay was duly explained and he further supported the reasons given by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti that in case the appeal is not admitted then substantial rights of the respondent No. 3 would be lost forever and accordingly in the interest of justice, the delay has been condoned and there is no infirmity in the same.

5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, it is noticed that as per the allegations levelled by the respondent No. 3 which have been duly recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti, the father of the respondent No. 3 namely Chhabilal son of Ram Pyare has sold the land situated at Gata No. 3533M in favour of the petitioner while the allegation is that the petitioner has got mutated even the other plot situated at Gata No.3543M in his name illegally and arbitrarily. It is only then the petitioner sought to take possession of the said land from the respondent No. 3 that the appeal was filed which was subject matter of the order dated 03.04.2025. Undoubtedly, the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation of delay of 21 days and the respondent No. 3 was able to give satisfactory explanation for the delay caused in filing of the said appeal.

6. Apart from the above, the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti has rightly recorded that in case the delay is not condoned then the substantial rights of the respondent No. 3 shall be lost forever.

7. We have also perused the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation, Shrawasti who has also recorded that he did not find any error in the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti and we have also noticed that the rights of the parties shall be adjudicated after following the due procedure and giving them due opportunity of hearing. Apart from that satisfactory explanation given by the respondent No. 3 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti, we find that the substantial rights of the parties are affected which cannot be denied on mere technicalities of law.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground for interference in the discretion exercised by the authority below which is on due appreciation of facts and on the basis of material available on record. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

9. However, the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti is directed to decide the said appeal with expedition, say, within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The parties before this Court shall co- operate in the proceedings before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 (Manoj K.) (Alok Mathur, J.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Ram Prasad Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents and Sri Santosh Kumar Dwivedi, advocate, who has filed Power on behalf of the respondent No. 3.

2. The dispute raised in the present petition pertains to Gata No. 3533M and according to the petitioner, she had purchased the same from the father of respondent No. 3 namely Chhabilal through a registered sale deed dated 14.01.1999 and even the mutation has been carried out in her name on 28.05.2003. It is after a lapse of 19 years that an appeal against the said order has been preferred by respondent No. 3 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti. The said appeal was admittedly filed after a lapse of 19 years along with an application for condonation of delay. By means of order dated 03.04.2025, passed in Case No. 1255/2022, Computerized Case No.202254086200001255 (Ambikeshwar Vs. Smt Malti Devi And Others), the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti has condoned the delay. While condoning the delay, he has recorded the grounds taken by the respondent No. 3 stating therein that the land situated at Gata No. 3533M was sold to the petitioner but apart from mutating the said Gata in her name even the Gata situated at 3543 which was not sold by the father of the respondent No. 3 in favour of the petitioner was also wrongly mutated in his name, accordingly, challenged the mutation entry in favour of the petitioner. The Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti has recorded that in case the application is dismissed on ground of mutation then the petitioner shall forever be barred from taking his claim with regard to the disputed land and accordingly allowed the application at a cost of Rs.1,000/-.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2025 had filed a revision before the Deputy Director Consolidation, Shrawasti. He has recorded that he did not find any error in the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti dated 03.04.2025 in the light of the fact that the parties will have adequate opportunity to place their version before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti and also that order would be passed after duly hearing the parties and accordingly rejected the application. The petitioner submitted that the orders condoning the delay are illegal and arbitrary considering the fact that the delay of 19 years is an extraordinary period of delay and no cogent explanation was given with regard to the condonation of delay and accordingly prayed for setting aside the impugned orders.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the private respondents continue to be in possession of the said land till such time as they were sought to be dispossessed of and it is only then they came to know that mutation entry has wrongly been allowed in favour of the petitioner and in these circumstances, he moved an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti and submits that the delay was duly explained and he further supported the reasons given by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti that in case the appeal is not admitted then substantial rights of the respondent No. 3 would be lost forever and accordingly in the interest of justice, the delay has been condoned and there is no infirmity in the same.

5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, it is noticed that as per the allegations levelled by the respondent No. 3 which have been duly recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti, the father of the respondent No. 3 namely Chhabilal son of Ram Pyare has sold the land situated at Gata No. 3533M in favour of the petitioner while the allegation is that the petitioner has got mutated even the other plot situated at Gata No.3543M in his name illegally and arbitrarily. It is only then the petitioner sought to take possession of the said land from the respondent No. 3 that the appeal was filed which was subject matter of the order dated 03.04.2025. Undoubtedly, the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation of delay of 21 days and the respondent No. 3 was able to give satisfactory explanation for the delay caused in filing of the said appeal.

6. Apart from the above, the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti has rightly recorded that in case the delay is not condoned then the substantial rights of the respondent No. 3 shall be lost forever.

7. We have also perused the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation, Shrawasti who has also recorded that he did not find any error in the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti and we have also noticed that the rights of the parties shall be adjudicated after following the due procedure and giving them due opportunity of hearing. Apart from that satisfactory explanation given by the respondent No. 3 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti, we find that the substantial rights of the parties are affected which cannot be denied on mere technicalities of law.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground for interference in the discretion exercised by the authority below which is on due appreciation of facts and on the basis of material available on record. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

9. However, the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti is directed to decide the said appeal with expedition, say, within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The parties before this Court shall co- operate in the proceedings before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Shrawasti. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 (Manoj K.) (Alok Mathur, J.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench