BHUPATI DAS (SINCE DECEASED) AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 38420 of 2026

Bhupati Das (Since Deceased) And 3 Others
                                                             .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)           :   Dhiraj Srivastava, Vipul Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)           :   C.S.C.

Court No. - 36
           HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vipul

Kumar and Sri Dhiraj Srivastava, Advocates for petitioners and Sri

Rajesh Kumar Ojha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-

Respondents.


2. The ceiling proceedings initiated against predecessors of petitioners

was dropped after consideration. Admittedly, after about five years the

State has filed appeals under Section 13 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on

Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1960”) and it

appears that since it was not accompanied by an affidavit and before the

delay could be condoned petitioners have approached this Court by way

of filing three writ petitions, i.e., Writ Petitions No. 5412 of 1999; 5596 of

1999 and 5599 of 1999, which were disposed of vide an order dated

02.07.2007 that State can file an affidavit of some Officer for condonation

of delay in appeals pending before Appellate Authority and after taking

note of pleadings on application, the same be decided.


3. Subsequently, State remained silent and no affidavit was filed

immediately in support of application for condonation of delay. After

about 12 years an affidavit was filed in support of application for
                                                                      WRIC No. 38420 of 2026
                                       2


condonation of delay. Petitioners have filed objection to said affidavit and

finally by means of impugned order dated 01.09.2026 delay was

condoned and both appeals were admitted for hearing.


4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners vehemently referred

impugned order that there is no consideration, whether or not there were

sufficient cause to condone delay of about 5 years. No specific

consideration was made why an affidavit was filed in support of

application for condonation of delay after about 12 years when this Court

has directed to file the same. For reference relevant part of impugned

order is reproduced hereinafter:

     "उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं पर उभय पक्ष के विद्वान अधिवक्ताओं के तर्क पूर्ण बहस सुने गये। यद्यपि
     राज्य सरकार की ओर से मा० उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश के अनुक्रम में शपथ पत्र के साथ
     विलम्ब मर्षण की प्रार्थना किये जाने में अत्याधिक विलम्ब किया गया है। तथापि प्रकरण का
     गुण दोष पर विचारण किये जाने की दृष्टि से परिसीमा अधिनियम की धारा 5 का लाभ देते हुये
     अपील को सुनवाई हेतु ग्रहण किया जाना न्यायहित में उचित है।"


5. In support of above submissions, learned Senior Advocate has placed

reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Shivamma (Dead)

by Lrs. vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others, 2025 INSC 1104

that there must be a specific finding on basis of record that there were

sufficient ground for condonation of delay. No special weightage can be

given to State. For reference relevant paragraphs of aforesaid judgment

are reproduced hereinafter:

     “261. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the High
     Court deserves to be set aside. Before we proceed to close this judgment,
     we deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that administrative
     lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation
     of delay, and we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High
                                                             WRIC No. 38420 of 2026
                                3


Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial
grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the
State-machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and
remained vigilant all throughout. Procedure is a handmaid to justice, as is
famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts,
ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also
equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigation's due to its
own lackadaisical attitude.

262. The High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous
attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain
extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-
authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and
lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy
and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of
perpetual litigation's, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable
orders are frustrated at later stages. We are at pains to reiterate this
everlasting trend, and put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen
matters with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so
the courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals under
section 100 of the CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is already limited to
questions of law.

263. Limitation periods are prescribed to maintain a sweeping scope for
the lis to attain for finality. More than the importance of judicial time,
what worries us is the plight of a litigant with limited means, who is to
contest against an enormous State, and its elaborate and never-exhausting
paraphernalia. Such litigation's deserve to be disposed of at the very
threshold, because, say if a party litigating against the State, for whatever
reason, is unable to contest the condonation of delay in appeal, unlike the
present case, it reopens the lis for another round of litigation, and leaves
such litigant listless yet again. As courts of conscience, it is our obligation
that we assure that a litigant is not sent from pillar to post to seek justice.

264. No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic,
much less be permitted by the courts to misuse the process of law.”
                                                                                           WRIC No. 38420 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    6. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for State-

                                    Respondents has tried his best to support impugned order, however, since

                                    there is no specific reason assigned therein that there were sufficient

                                    ground for condonation of delay of 5 years, he failed to support the

                                    impugned order.


                                    7. In aforesaid circumstances, the Court takes note that Appellate

                                    Authority has condoned delay of five years without giving specific

                                    finding, whether or not there were sufficient ground to condone delay of

                                    five years. The Court also finds that impugned order is also in the teeth of

                                    observations made by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2007 as well as

                                    judgment passed by Supreme Court in Shivamma (supra) since it is not

                                    accompanied by required reasons for condonation of delay of five years.


                                    8. Accordingly, impugned order dated 01.09.2026 is hereby set aside and

                                    matter is remitted to Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order on

                                    application for condonation of delay taking note of material available as

                                    well as observations made by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2007 and

                                    position of law reiterated by Supreme Court in Shivamma (supra). This

                                    exercise shall be concluded preferably within a period of three months

                                    from today.


                                    9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.


                                                                              (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    AK




Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad