High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Radhey Shyam & Others v. D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 14268 of 1986  RD-AH 12569 (31 July 2006)
Judgment Reserved on 19.7.2006
Judgment Delivered on 31.7.2006
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14268 of 1986
Radhey Shyam and others Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and others
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Respondent No.2 Bhola Nath whose name was never recorded in the revenue records over the agricultural land in dispute, filed highly belated objections before Consolidation Officer (C.O) in respect thereof. Objections in respect of some of the agricultural property in dispute were filed on 1.6.1975 and objections in respect of rest of the agricultural property in dispute were filed on 9.10.1976.
Publication under section 9(1) (b) in the unit in question took place on 22.1.1973. By virtue of section 9(2) objections could be filed within 21 days from the said publication. Alongwith objections, application for delay condonation was filed in which only reason mentioned was that respondent No.2 was residing at Bombay and came back to the village on 17.3.1975. Copy of affidavit filed alongwith delay condonation application in the first objections dated 1.6.1975 is annexure 2 to the writ petition. In respect of explanation of delay in between 17.3.1975 to 1.6.1975, a very lame excuse was advanced to the effect that petitioners assured the respondent No.2 that in the revenue records name of respondent No.2 had also been entered. Petitioners filed detailed objections to the delay condonation application stating therein that similar delay condonation application in respect of objections by respondent No.2 in respect of other land had been rejected. Consolidation Officer, (C.O) Sadar, Varanasi through order-dated 12.10.1977, dismissed the application for condonation of delay in case Nos. 18 and 19. C.O held that no evidence regarding residence of respondent No.2 at Bombay was produced. C.O. further held that from 17.3.1975 till 1.6.1975 and 9.10.1976, no explanation was given. Appeal filed against the said order being Appeal No. 528 was also dismissed by Settlement Officer Consolidation (S.O.C) Varanasi on 19.2.1980. Said orders were challenged through Revision No. 1199/260. Deputy Director of Consolidation (D.D.C), Varanasi allowed the revision on 30.4.1984. An application was filed for review of the order dated 30.4.1984 before D.D.C which was also dismissed on 31.7.1986. Orders dated 31.7.1986 and 30.4.1984 are challenged through this writ petition. D.D.C discussed the question of merit also and held that in Khatauni of 1334 F (1926-27 A.D) names of Digai and Laxmi were recorded in the revenue records and respondent No.2 was son of Udit who was real brother of Laxmi. It may be mentioned that petitioners had denied the relationship.
Firstly at the stage of delay condonation application, merit of the case is not to be seen. In any case such types of objections are not maintainable after 50 years, as I have held in Jagdeo Vs. D.D.C Allahabad writ petition No. 1332 of 1976 decided by me on 3.7.2006.
As far as grounds of condonation of delay are concerned, D.D.C did not say a single word in respect thereof. He condoned the delay only in view of some authority reported in R.D 1945 (year not given).
D.D.C had no authority or jurisdiction to condone the delay without believing the grounds taken in the delay condonation application. D.D.C did not say a single word that why the orders passed by C.O and S.O.C refusing to condone the delay were incorrect.
Learned counsel for the respondents has cited some authorities to contend that as in consolidation proceedings title is decided hence lenient view in respect of condonation of delay must be taken. However, there is no authority which holds that without any reason or rhyme delay must be condoned. The grounds for delay condonation were disbelieved by C.O. and S.O.C. D.D.C did not say a single word either in respect of the said grounds or in respect of the findings of C.O and S.O.C rejecting the said pleas.
In my opinion judgment and order passed by D.D.C is patently erroneous in law. Delay cannot be condoned just for the asking. Respondent No.2 could not explain the delay and C.O and S.O.C rightly rejected the delay condonation application.
Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Judgment and order passed by D.D.C is set-aside. Judgment and order assed by C.O and S.O.C is restored.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.