AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj K. Tiwari, J. (Oral)
By means of this petition, petitioners have challenged the orders dated 02.07.2003 and 06.06.2018 passed in Revision No. 52/06 of 2002-03, filed by
respondent No. 1 under Section 48 of Consolidation of Holdings Act. Vide order dated 02.07.2003, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Udham Singh
Nagar allowed the delay condonation application filed by respondent No. 1 â€" Smt. Somaria and condoned delay in filing the revision. Petitioners
moved an application for rehearing on the question of condonation of delay in filing the revision, which was rejected by the revisional court vide order
dated 06.06.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was delay of about 2½ years, which was condoned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation
by a cryptic order dated 02.07.2003, without assigning any cogent reason. During pendency of the revision, petitioners, who are subsequent purchasers
of the land in question, got themselves impleaded in the said revision by moving separate applications for impleadment, which were allowed vide orders
dated 23.08.2012 and 13.09.2012. Subsequently, on 16.05.2016, petitioners filed an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation with a
prayer that they may be heard on delay condonation application. The said application was rejected by Director of Consolidation vide order dated
06.06.2018 upon transfer of the case to him.
Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioners have challenged the orders dated 02.07.2003 and 06.06.2018 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Udham Singh Nagar and Director of Consolidation, Dehradun, respectively.
I have perused the orders impugned in the writ petition. By the earlier order dated 02.07.2003, learned Deputy Director of Consolidation had
allowed the application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, filed by respondent No. 1 and condoned the delay caused in filing the revision. By the
subsequent order dated 06.06.2018, learned revisional court had rejected petitioners’ application for rehearing on the delay condonation
application.
Since the delay condonation application was allowed as far back as on 02.07.2003, when petitioners were nowhere in picture, therefore, there was
no question of rehearing on the said application after 15 years. The application made by petitioners for rehearing was clearly misconceived. Thus, I
find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 06.06.2018.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Subbarayudu & others Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LAO) reported in (2017) 12 SCC 840 has
held that liberal and justice oriented approach should be adopted while considering delay condonation application. Para 11 of the said judgment is
extracted below:-
“The term “sufficient cause†is to receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when no negligence, inaction or want of
bona fides is attributable to the appellants, the Court should adopt a justice-oriented approach in condoning the delay. In State of Nagaland v. Lipok
AO and Others (2005) 3 SCC 752, it was held as under:-“….. Section 5 is to be construed liberally so as to do substantial justice to the parties.
The provision contemplates that the court has to go in the position of the person concerned and to find out if the delay can be said to have been
resulted from the cause which he had adduced and whether the cause can be recorded in the peculiar circumstances of the case as sufficient.â€â€
The order passed by learned Deputy Director of Consolidation on 02.07.2003 is in consonance with the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court, whereby justice oriented approach was adopted in favour of respondent No. 1, who is the widow of original tenure holder.
Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the orders impugned in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, dismissal of
the writ petition will not preclude the petitioners from raising all contentions, which are available to them under law, before Director of Consolidation in
the pending revision (No. 52/06 of 2002-03).