Writ jurisdiction and limitation: a time-barred revenue appeal cannot be decided on merits without first condoning delay.

The Allahabad HC reiterated that the existence of a statutory revision does not by itself bar writ jurisdiction, especially where the challenge raises a pure question of law or alleges lack of jurisdiction. It also held that an appeal filed beyond the 30-day limitation under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 could not be entertained or decided on merits unless delay was first condoned by a specific order. Because the appellate authority admitted and disposed of the appeal without recording any condonation order, the proceedings were jurisdictionally defective and the appellate order was unsustainable. The matter was remitted for decision on the delay application before any consideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of a statutory revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; (ii) whether the appellate authority could admit and decide an appeal filed beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 without first passing an order on condonation of delay.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of a statutory revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not by itself oust the writ jurisdiction. Maintainability and entertainability are distinct concepts, and the writ court may interfere where the challenge raises a pure question of law or where the impugned order is alleged to be without jurisdiction. The availability of revision under Section 210 therefore did not bar consideration of the writ petition.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the appellate authority could admit and decide an appeal filed beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 without first passing an order on condonation of delay.

Analysis: Section 24(4) prescribes a limitation period of 30 days for filing the appeal. Limitation goes to the jurisdiction of the appellate authority, and a time-barred appeal cannot be treated as legally instituted unless delay is first condoned after considering the explanation offered. Here, the appellate authority admitted the appeal, granted interim protection, and finally decided it on merits without recording any order condoning delay. That omission rendered the proceedings jurisdictionally defective. The objection based on non-impleadment of the Gram Panchayat did not alter this conclusion, and the earlier writ order did not authorize bypassing the limitation issue.

Conclusion: The appellate authority had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits without first condoning the delay.

Final Conclusion: The impugned appellate order was unsustainable for want of prior adjudication on limitation, and the matter was sent back for decision on the delay application before any decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A time-barred appeal cannot be entertained or decided on merits unless delay is first condoned by a specific order; failure to do so vitiates the appellate order for want of jurisdiction.

---