Allahabad High Court
Paras Nath Singh vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 10 May, 2010
Author: Yogendra Kumar Sangal
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Sangal
Court No. - 10 Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 335 of 2010 Petitioner :- Paras Nath Singh Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation (Admn.) Sultanpur And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Sampurnanand Shukla Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,R.N.Gupta,Raj Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Yogendra Kumar Sangal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and brief holder for respondent No. 3.
Certain orders were passed by Consolidation Officer on 07.07.1982. Challenging the order of C.O., an appeal was preferred before the learned S.O.C., after 15 years. An application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was also moved. Learned S.O.C. has allowed the application and condoned the delay. A revision was filed before learned D.D.C. was also dismissed. Aggrieved by these orders, this petition has been filed.
On the application of the petitioner, learned S.O.C. has observed in first paragraph of the order that he is deciding application for condonation of delay first. In the last paragraph of the order also it is clear that he has decided the application for condonation of delay only and he has not decided the appeal filed by the respondents. Similarly, learned D.D.C has not decided the matter on merit, but impugned order was passed on the matter under Section 5 of Limitation Act only. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that certain observations are made in the impugned order of S.O.C. and D.D.C. showing that they have decided the appeal and revision on merit also. He further argued that there was no sufficient ground for condoning the delay in the matter.
Learned for the state argued that it is a matter of land of Gram Sabha. Under the provisions of law now no right, title can be acquired on such land by plea of adverse possession. Giving sufficient and detailed reasons delay has been condoned by learned C.O. and the same was confirmed by learned D.D.C. with detailed order giving sufficient reasons. It is established law that every efforts should be made to decide dispute between the parties on merit. Two courts below found sufficient ground to condone delay. This Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India should not act like appellate Court.
Seeing the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments of parties counsel, I do not find any ground to quash the orders dated 19.04.2010 and 17.02.2010 Annexure-1 and 2. Accordingly petition is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.5.2010 Rakesh