Allahabad High Court
Kanta Ram vs State Of Up And 8 Others on 9 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75889 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1582 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kanta Ram Respondent :- State Of Up And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava,Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
3. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mau/ respondent no.2 to decide the appeal No. 689, computerized case No. 202154155100000802 (Kanta Vs. Surendra and others) under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act and to restrain the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner and further direct the Settlement Officer of Consolidation/ respondent no.2 not to prepare the bondobast till the disposal of the appeal No. 689, computerized case No. 202154155100000802 (Kanta Vs. Surendra and others).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to restrain the contesting respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner from the land in dispute."
4. On 28.4.2025, following order was passed by this Court:-
"1. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that time-barred appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by the petitioner is pending before respondent no.2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mau since 2021. He further submitted that delay in filing the appeal has been condoned.
2. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to file supplementary affidavit, annexing the order, condoning the delay in filing the aforementioned appeal.
3. Put up this matter as fresh on 9.5.2025."
5. In compliance of the order dated 28.4.2025, supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.
6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay in filing the appeal has not been condoned till date but due to inadvertent mistake, the statement was made on the last date before the Court that delay in filing the appeal has been condoned. He further submitted that appropriate direction should be issued for the expeditious disposal of time barred appeal.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
8. There is no dispute about the fact that pending title appeal is time barred.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances, no case for expeditious disposal of time barred proceeding is made out.
10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Vandana Y.