HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8547 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. 2. The grievance raised by the petitioner with regard to the proceedings initiated against him under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that notice was received by the petitioner stating that he encroached upon the Gaon Sabha land, situated at Gata No. 256 area 0.004 hectares, which is recorded (Government land) situated at village Chaudgadwa, Pargana Charda, Tehsil Nanpara, District Bahraich. The petitioner has submitted his objection, which was rejected by the Tehsildar on 6.12.2024 and orders for eviction and imposition for penalty was passed against the petitioner. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 6.12.2024, has preferred an appeal before the Chief Revenue Officer, Bahraich, who has rejected the appeal by means of order dated 26.3.2025. 5. Counsel for the petitioner by assailing the order dated 26.3.2025 has submitted that the appeal was preferred after delay of 14 days but the Chef Revenue Officer has chosen not to condone the delay and proceeded to reject the appeal on merits also. He has submitted that once the appeal was rejected on the ground of limitation then the appellate authority does not consider the case on merits and accordingly submits that on both the counts the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary and are liable to be set aside. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rahul Kumar Shukla, Mohit Singh, Shivam Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Jubed Ahmad @ Juber .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 6. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has supported the impugned orders but does not dispute the aforesaid facts. 7. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the Appellate Authority has decline to condone the delay of 14 days and rejected the application for condonation of delay, submitted by the petitioner along with the appeal. I further find that the Appellate Authority has proceeded to consider the appeal on merits and dispose of the same. 8. I find that in case the Appellate Authority was of the view that the appeal is time barred then he should not have decided the matter on its merits. Once apart from above, I find that propriety rights pertaining to property are in question and 14 days delay is not such an extra ordinary long period of time, for which the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act ought to be rejected. The petitioner had given reasons for delay in filing of the appeal stating that there was some delay in obtaining the certified copy and subsequently the petitioner was falling ill. I find that the aforesaid ground was sufficient for condoning the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal. 9. It is on the aforesaid reasons, I partly allow the writ petition and set aside the order dated 26.3.2025. The matter is remitted to the Chief Revenue Officer for deciding the matter on merits. 10. Let the matter be disposed of within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the matter. 11. Till the decision of the Appellate Authority, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. 12. It is made clear that on passing of the order of the Appellate Authority, the protection granted by this Court, shall cease to it. September 9, 2025 Muk WRIC No. 8547 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench