Allahabad High Court
SANTRAMversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The impugned order is set aside due to procedural illegality and insufficient service of notice, and the matter is remitted for a fresh order.
Summary
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of entries in the Parivar Register for 1995 and 2008, which was based on a belated appeal filed in 2021 under Section 6-A of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, instead of the appropriate 1970 Rules, without condoning the delay. The court also noted that the notice purportedly served on the petitioner was not documented, rendering the service defective. It held that both the improper basis for the appeal and the insufficient notice constituted procedural illegality. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. The matter was remitted to the appellate authority to determine the maintainability of the appeal and whether the extraordinary delay can be condoned. Both parties were directed to appear before the respondent on 22‑09‑2026.
Issues considered
- Whether an appeal filed after a prolonged period is maintainable under Section 6-A of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
- Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned under the statutory provision.
- Whether the notice served on the petitioner was valid and complied with procedural requirements.
- Whether the impugned order should be set aside on grounds of procedural illegality.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 — s. 6-A
- Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules, 1970
Subjects
- Parivar Register
- Panchayat Raj Act
- delay condonation
- service of notice
- writ petition
- appellate authority
- remand
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 19591 of 2026
Santram
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Awadhesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rajesh Yadav
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. An entry in the Parivar Register of the years 1995 and 2008 was cancelled
on basis of a belated appeal filed in the year 2021 by the contesting
respondents under Section 6-A of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947,
which ought to have been under Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Maintenance
of Family Registers) Rules, 1970, without even condoning the delay as
provided under the said provision. Therefore, an illegality is being
committed.
3. The other illegality is that, according to the order impugned, notice was
served upon petitioner; however, the ordersheet which is placed on record,
i.e., of 04.12.2025, does not states as to how the notice was served upon the
petitioner, therefore, service was not sufficient. Therefore, an argument of
learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is being prejudiced has merit.
4. An attempt on behalf of learned counsel for the contesting respondents
that the notice was served cannot be accepted, since it would contrary to the
record. Otherwise also, huge delay was not even condoned.
5. In the aforementioned circumstances, the impugned order is set aside
and matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order.
6. Both the parties shall appear before the concerned respondent on
22.09.2026.
WRIC No. 19591 of 2026
2
7. On remand, the first issue will be whether such appeal is maintainable
after so many years or there are sufficient reasons to condone
extraordinary delay.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
September 8, 2026
A.N. Mishra
Digitally signed by :-
AMARNATH MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…