# Purushottam Ram v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1512
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-11-27
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61462 of 2012
- **Bench:** Satya Poot Mehrotra, Het Singh Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/purushottam-ram-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42345
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
revision-against
order-passed
by
Development Authority under Section 27
of Urban Development Act-despite of
pending revision notices to remove
construction-stay application could not
be considered as presiding revision
authority not posted-petition disposed of
with direction to approach before R-2who shall consider and take appropriate
decision-Status Quo-be maintained-till
disposal of revision.

## Text

1512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

infirmity in the impugned judgment. The
appeal is dismissed. No costs."

14. In view of foregoing discussions,
the controversy can be summarized as
under:-

(i) When the statute provides limitation
for approaching the Court and a person
approaches the Court after the expiry of the
period of limitation, then he has to approach
the Court along with an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying
extension of period of limitation or to
condone the delay in approaching the Court.

(ii) Once the application under Section
5 of the Limitation Act is filed and unless
the delay is condoned, no order can be
passed on merit .

(iii) The delay cannot be condoned
without having the version of otherside and
for that, otherside is required to be noticed
and heard.

15. Here in this case, admittedly, the
revision was filed along with an application
for condonation of delay and without
condoning the delay, the revision has been
decided, therefore the Deputy Director of
Consolidation has erred in deciding the
revision on merit without condoning the
delay and the impugned order dated
4.10.2012 passed by him cannot be
sustained, hence, it is hereby quashed.

16. The writ petition succeeds and is
allowed.

17.

The
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation is directed to consider the
applications for condonation of delay first
and in case the delay is condoned, the
revisions itself be decided expeditiously, but
not later than six months from the date of
decision on section 5 applications. In case
the application under section 5 is rejected,
the reason for the same may also be
recorded.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.11.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SATYA POOT MEHROTRA, J.
THE HON'BLE HET SINGH YADAV, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61462 of 2012

Purushottam Ram

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sunil Kumar Singh
Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vivek Verma
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
revision-against
order-passed
by
Development Authority under Section 27
of Urban Development Act-despite of
pending revision notices to remove
construction-stay application could not
be considered as presiding revision
authority not posted-petition disposed of
with direction to approach before R-2who shall consider and take appropriate
decision-Status Quo-be maintained-till
disposal of revision.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Satya Poot
Mehrotra, J.)

1. The present Writ Petition has
been filed by the petitioner, inter-alia,
praying for directing the respondent no.2
to expeditiously dispose of the Stay
Application filed by the petitioner along
3 All] Purushottam Ram V. State of U.P. and others

1513
with the Revision No. 82 of 2012 filed by
him.

2. It appears that an order dated
14.9.2009 was passed by the concerned
Officer
of
Varanasi
Development
Authority exercising power under Section
27(1) of the U.P. Urban Planning and
Development Act, 1973 , inter-alia,
directing
for
demolition
of
the
construction in question raised by the
petitioner.

3. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an
Appeal under Section 27 (2) of the said
Act.

4. The said Appeal was dismissed by
the Commissioner/ Chairman, Varanasi
Development Authority by the order
dated 26.7.2012.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a
Revision before the State Government
under Section 41 (3) of the said Act. The
said Revision was numbered as Revision
No. 82 of 2012.

6. The said Revision is stated to be
pending before the respondent no.2.

7. It further transpires that Stay
Application has been filed on behalf of
the petitioner alongwith the said Revision.
Copy of the said Stay Application appears
at page no. 67 of the Paper -Book of the
said Writ Petition .

8. It is further averred in the Writ
Petition that despite the pendency of the
said Revision, a notice dated 7.11.2012
has been issued by Varanasi Development
Authority directing the petitioner to
remove the construction in question.

9. We have heard Sri Rajesh Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri Vivek Verma, learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 3 , 4 and 5 and the
learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the respondent nos. 1 and 2, and perused
the record.

10. In paragraph no. 18 of the Writ
Petition, it has been stated that the post of
Principal Secretary, Housing nd Urban
Planning , Government of U.P., is vacant ,
therefore, the Revision preferred by the
petitioner is not being proceeded with .

11. In view of the above avernment
made in paragraph no.18 of the Writ
Petition,
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2
was directed to be obtain instructions in
the matter.

12. Sri K.R.Singh, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.
1 and 2, on the basis of instructions
received by him, states that Sri Praveer
Kumar is looking after the work of the
Principal Secretary . Department of
Housing and Urban Planing , Government
of U.P. , Lucknow , and he will deal with
the Revision filed by the petitioner.

13. In view of the above, we are of
the view that the interest of justice would
be subserved by disposing of the Writ
Petition with the following directions:

1. Within six weeks from today, the
petitioner will file an Application before
the respondent no.2 alongwith certified
copy of this order as well as copy of the
aforesaid Revision filed by the petitioner.

2. On receipt of the aforesaid
Application alongwith the documents
1514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

mentioned above, the respondent no.2
will proceed to consider the Stay
Application filed with the Revision
preferred by the petitioner and will pass
suitable orders thereon in accordance with
law, expeditiously ,preferably within a
period of two months of the receipt of the
aforesaid Application, after hearing the
petitioner and by passing speaking order. .

3. Till 18,.3.2013 or till the disposal
of the Stay Application, filed by the
petitioner with the Revision , by the
respondent no.2, as directed above,
whichever is earlier, Status -quo , as of
date, in regard to the construction in
question, will be maintained by the parties
hereto.

14. The Writ Petition is disposed of
accordingly with the above directions.
---------