# Dev Bux Singh v. Deputy Director Consolidation Faizabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 1055
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2018-02-27
- **Case number:** Consolidation No. 4196 of 2018
- **Bench:** Rakesh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dev-bux-singh-v-deputy-director-consolidation-faizabad-ors-44340
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

1056 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 - Section 9(A)2 - Revision under
section 48(1) of the Act - Rule 111 of the
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings
Rules, 1954 - limitation for filing a
revision before the Deputy Director of
Consolidation under section 48 of the Act
- 30 days from the date of the order
against which the application is directed
.

Held:- The revision was barred by limitation
by more than five years - the revision
preferred by the private respondent no. 2 has
been admitted by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation without condoning the delay - It
is settled that where a suit, appeal, revision or
application is barred by limitation the court has
no jurisdiction to pass any order unless the
delay is condoned -In case of delay in filing an
appeal, revision or application, the court is
obliged to consider the explanation for the
delay offered by the appellant/revisionist, as
the case maybe - It is only after condoning the
delay that the court gets jurisdiction to
proceed with the matter. (Para 10,11,12)

Impugned order set aside (E-7)

List of Cases Cited: -

## Text

2 All. Dev Bux Singh Vs Deputy Director Consolidation Faizabad & Ors.
1055
provision empowering them to withheld the
result, once the election commenced, as per
the schedule given by them. In view of the
above, an inference can be drawn against the
University for undue advantage to other party
by going against the statutory provisions or
send a representation of their choice. The
adverse remarks against the Officer who has
passed the impugned order could have been
made but he is not party in person to the
litigation. Thus, we are refraining ourselves to
make adverse remark against the Registrar or
the Vice-chancellor. The facts on record
shows that till the date of declaration of result
i.e. 23.09.2017, no complaint was received by
the respondent-University.

18. At this stage, we may refer the
argument of learned counsel for the
respondent no. 6, who stated that
complaint was given on the date of
declaration of result itself. The argument
aforesaid has been raised orally. It is not
supported by any of the document and
otherwise goes against the document at
Annexure 14, where the only complaint
received by the University was on
12.10.2017 and not prior to that.

19. Accordingly, we cannot accept
the oral statement of learned counsel for
respondent no. 6 going contrary to the
document. In view of the facts given
above, what we find is that nondeclaration of the result of the election is
wholly illegal. It should have been
declared on 23.09.2017 and in case of a
dispute thereupon, could have referred to
the Central Government but not in the
manner it is done in this case.

20. In view of above, while causing
interference in the order impugned herein,
the respondent-University is directed to
declare the result of the election.

21. It is when dispute pertaining to
election was not during the course of
election or immediate after counting of
votes. It is more so when dispute is about
the eligibility of the candidates thus
should have been raised during process of
election. If no dispute is raised till then,
University was under obligation to
declare the result. Accordingly, while
quashing the order dated 08.02.2018, we
allow the writ petition with a direction to
the respondent to declare the result of the
election. However, it would not preclude
the respondent no. 6 or any other
candidate to challenge the election by
taking appropriate measures, as provided
under the law. A reference of dispute to
the Central Government can be made in
that case.

22. In view of the acceptance of the
prayer, subsequent schedule given in
Annexure 2 for the election is set aside.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1055

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.02.2018

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Consolidation No. 4196 of 2018

Dev Bux Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director Consolidation
Faizabad & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Onkar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Badrish Tripathi
1056 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 - Section 9(A)2 - Revision under
section 48(1) of the Act - Rule 111 of the
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings
Rules, 1954 - limitation for filing a
revision before the Deputy Director of
Consolidation under section 48 of the Act
- 30 days from the date of the order
against which the application is directed
.

Held:- The revision was barred by limitation
by more than five years - the revision
preferred by the private respondent no. 2 has
been admitted by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation without condoning the delay - It
is settled that where a suit, appeal, revision or
application is barred by limitation the court has
no jurisdiction to pass any order unless the
delay is condoned -In case of delay in filing an
appeal, revision or application, the court is
obliged to consider the explanation for the
delay offered by the appellant/revisionist, as
the case maybe - It is only after condoning the
delay that the court gets jurisdiction to
proceed with the matter. (Para 10,11,12)

Impugned order set aside (E-7)

List of Cases Cited: -

1. Noharlal Verma Vs Distt. Coop. Central Bank
Ltd. (2008) 14 SCC 445

2. St. of W.B. Vs Somdeb Bandyopadhayay
(2009) 2 SCC 694

3. Sant Lal Gupta Vs Modern Cooperative
Group Housing Society Ltd. & ors. (2010) 13
SCC 336
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava, J.)

1. Sri Madan Chandra Dubey, the
Deputy Director of Consolidation, District
Faizabad
has
appeared
in
person.
Supplementary affidavit filed on his
behalf is taken on record.

2. The officer has stated that he
suspected some fraud and as such he
admitted the appeal and stayed the
operation of the order dated 2.4.2012
passed by the Consolidation Officer. This
fact is not borne out from the order under
challenge. However, the apology tendered
by the officer is accepted. The officer is
let off with a warning to be very careful in
future.

3. Heard Sri Onkar Pandey, learned
counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Standing Counsel representing the Staterespondents and Sri Badrish Tripathi,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent no. 2. In view of the order
proposed
to
be
passed,
notice
to
respondent nos. 3 and 4 is dispensed with.
With the consent of the counsels present
the matter has been heard and is being
disposed of at the admission stage itself.

4. It appears that against the order
dated
2.5.2012
passed
by
the
Consolidation Officer in Case No. 1752,
under
section
9(A)2
of
the
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for
short ''the Act'), the respondent no. 2
preferred a Revision No. 1194 under
section 48(1) of the Act before the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Faizabad.

5. On 10.1.2018, the revision was
admitted, the record of the court below
was summoned and 26.2.2018 was fixed
as the next date and by a non-speaking
order the operation of the order dated
2.5.2012 was also stayed. The order dated
10.1.2018 is extracted below:

"आि पत्रावली पेश हुई । जनगरानी दिच
रजििर हो । जनगरानीकताच को थथगन के जबिंदु पर
 ुना एविं पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध ाक्ष्योिं का जवजधवत
अवलोकन एविं अध्ययन जकया । न्यायजहत में
चकबिंदी अजधकारी द्वारा वाद िंख्या&171152 में
पाररत आदेश जदनािंक 02-05-2012 का जक्रयान्वयन
2 All. Dev Bux Singh Vs Deputy Director Consolidation Faizabad & Ors.
1057
एविं आगामी प्रभाव अजग्रम आदेश तक थथजगत
जकया िाता है। अवर न्यायालय की पत्रावली मिंगाई
िाए। जवपक्षीगण को ुनवाई हेतु म्मन तामील
कराकर जदनािंक 26-02-2018 को पत्रावली वास्ते
तकच प्रस्तुत हो।"

6. It is this order which is under
challenge in this petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that there was a delay of
more than five years in filing the revision.
The
counsel
submits
that
without
condoning the delay, the revision could
not have been admitted and an interim
order could not have been passed in
favour of the respondent no.2. Even
otherwise, the counsel submits the interim
order, being a non-speaking order, cannot
be sustained.

8. The learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent no. 2 has supported
the order.

9. Under Rule 111 of the Uttar
Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules,
1954 the limitation for filing a revision
before
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation under section 48 of the Act
is 30 days from the date of the order
against which the application is directed.
Admittedly, the revision was barred by
limitation by more than five years.

10. It is settled that where a suit,
appeal, revision or application is barred
by limitation the court has no jurisdiction
to pass any order unless the delay is
condoned. In Noharlal Verma v. Distt.
Coop. Central Bank Ltd., (2008) 14 SCC
445 the Apex Court has held as under:

"32. Now, limitation goes to the
root of the matter. If a suit, appeal or
application is barred by limitation, a court
or an adjudicating authority has no
jurisdiction,
power
or
authority
to
entertain such suit, appeal or application
and to decide it on merits."

11. In case of delay in filing an
appeal, revision or application, the court
is obliged to consider the explanation for
the
delay
offered
by
the
appellant/revisionist, as the case maybe. It
is only after condoning the delay that the
court gets jurisdiction to proceed with the
matter.

12. In the case at hand, the revision
preferred by the private respondent no. 2
has been admitted by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation without condoning the
delay. The order impugned is liable to be
set aside on this ground alone.

13. That apart the Apex Court has
strongly deprecated
the
practice
of
granting
an
interim
order
without
condoning the delay in State of W.B. v.
Somdeb Bandyopadhayay, (2009) 2 SCC
694 the Apex Court has held as under:

7. It is to be noticed that even
without
condoning
the
delay
and
entertaining the writ appeal the High
Court has passed a series of interim
orders. Such a course is impermissible as
the appeal was non est in the eye of the
law
without
it
being
entertained.
Admittedly, the delay in preferring the
writ appeal was not condoned at the time
when the interim orders were passed."

(emphasis supplied)

14. Furthermore, the interim order
passed by the Revisional Court would
show that the interim order which has
1058 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been passed in favour of respondent no. 2
is a cryptic one. The impugned order
merely states that the operation of the
order under challenge is being stayed in
the interest of justice. There is absolutely
no reason or ground mentioned in support
of this order. It is no more res integra that
every judicial order must contain reasons.
In Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Cooperative
Group Housing Society Limited and
others, (2010) 13 SCC 336 the Apex
Court in paragraph 27 has opined as
under:

"27. It is a settled legal
proposition that not only administrative
but also judicial orders must be supported
by reasons recorded in it. Thus, while
deciding an issue, the court is bound to
give reasons for its conclusion. It is the
duty and obligation on the part of the
court to record reasons while disposing of
the case. The hallmark of order and
exercise of judicial power by a judicial
forum is for the forum to disclose its
reasons by itself and giving of reasons has
always been insisted upon as one of the
fundamentals of sound administration of
the justice delivery system, to make it
known that there had been proper and due
application of mind to the issue before the
court and also as an essential requisite of
the principles of natural justice."

15. For the aforesaid reasons,
impugned order dated 10.12018 cannot be
sustained and is accordingly set aside.

16. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Faizabad is directed to
pass a fresh order in accordance with law
in the light of the observations made
above expeditiously and without granting
unnecessary adjournments to either of the
parties.

17. Till the time a fresh order is
passed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, the parties shall maintain
status quo and shall not alienate the
property in dispute.
----------
(2019)10ILR A 1058

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Government Appeal No. 334 of 2019

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Shree Krishna Chandra
 ...Accused-Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondent:
------

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 :-
Section 378(3) - application-grant of leave
to appeal- if the value of property held is
not 10% in excess than the known source
of income then that will not be deemed to
be
inappropriate
or
disproportionate
property.-After analyzing this aspect, the
judgment of acquittal has been passed,
which is based on the basis of evidence on
record. (Para 3 & 4)

Government Appeal rejected (E-6)

Case Law discussed:

1. Krishnand Rao Vs St. of M. P. AIR 1977 SC 796

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J.)