HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9214 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Pheran Dwivedi, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 2. In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondents are dispensed with. 3. The grievance raised by the petitioner is with regard to the proceedings U/S 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pertaining to correction of map for which the application was given by respondent No. 3 who was the recorded tenure holder of Gata No. 407 situated in Village - Gokulpur, Pargana & Tehsil Nanpara, District - Bahraich. According to the private respondents, the area of her plot was less than what was mentioned in the revenue records and consequently report of the Revenue Inspector was called for and notices were issued to all the persons having adjoining land including the petitioners. 4. On receipt of the notices, the petitioners had filed their objections on 05.11.2020. In the said objections, they had stated that the land of respondent No. 3 was complete and her area was not less as alleged by her. The Additional District Magistrate after hearing all the parties and considering the objections of the petitioners deducted 14 kari of land which was owned by the petitioners from Gata no. 406 and Gata No. 408 and accordingly all the three gata numbers now contained the land as per Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Pheran Dwivedi, Anubhav Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Mani Ram And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) Addl. Commissioner (Add.), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) the revenue records and a specific finding has been recorded that after deducting 14 karis from each of the plots of the petitioners and adding it to the land of the applicant, the infirmity in the map stood corrected. 5. Against the order of the Additional District Magistrate dated 28.12.2020, the petitioners had filed an appeal after a delay of more than 4 years. The said appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. In the application for condonation of delay, it was stated that the petitioners had approached a counsel, namely, Brij Gopal Dwivedi and handed over all the documents. It is stated that Brij Gopal Dwivedi died during Covid-19 Pandemic and did not file the appeal as stated by the petitioners and consequently when they came to know, they engaged another counsel and the appeal was filed. 6. The appellate court has rejected the appeal as he did not find that the delay had been satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration) has been assailed in the present writ petition along with order dated 28.12.2020 passed by Additional District Magistrate. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners, firstly it is found that it is not believable that the petitioners gave the papers to their counsel and waited for the long years before they came to know that the counsel has expired during Covid-19 Pandemic. Apart from the above, this Court has also gone to the merits of the case and finds that gata no 407 is sandwiched between gata Nos. 406 and 408 of which the petitioners are recorded tenure holders. 8. In this context, reliance is placed on Shivamma Vs. Karnataka Houseing Borad & Ors, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and can be granted only on a bonafide and satisfactory explanation. Vague or casual reasons, negligence, or lack of due diligence cannot constitute sufficient cause, and judicial discretion must be exercised sparingly to preserve the finality of the proceedings and protect the rights accrued to opposite party. The relevant paragraphs are as under:- " 38. It is a well settled rule of statutory interpretation that while WRIC No. 9214 of 2025 2 construing a provision, a meaningful effect should be given to each and every word used by the legislature within the text of the provision. In interpreting a provision, a coherent meaning has to be culled out from the entire scheme of the Act and the provisions contained therein. The entire text of the provision must be read holistically with the entire Act, in toto, and harmoniously integrated with the other provisions to preserve internal consistency. Stray lines or words of a provision cannot be isolated or construed in fragments, detached from the remaining words and expressions of the provision as-well as the other provisions within the statute. 40. As such, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for the purpose of seeking condonation of delay in filing of an appeal or application, as the case may be, beyond the stipulated period of limitation, the delay in the filing has to be explained by demonstrating the existence of a “sufficient cause” that resulted in such delay for both the prescribed period of limitation as-well as the period after the expiry of limitation, up to actual date of filing of such appeal or application, as the case may be, or to put it simply, explanation has to be given for the entire duration from the date when the clock of limitation began to tick, up until the date of actual filing, for seeking condonation of delay by recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 116. As already discussed in the foregoing parts, for the purpose of seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the party has to demonstrate the existence of a “sufficient cause” “within the prescribed period” to the satisfaction of the court. Thus, establishment of “sufficient cause” is the first ingredient for the purpose of condonation of delay. Insofar, as what is meant by the phrase “sufficient cause”, neither Section 5 nor the Limitation Act itself provide any guidance on what its constituent elements ought to be. Instead, Section 5 leaves the task of determining appropriate reasons for seeking condonation of delay to judicial interpretation and exercise of discretion upon the facts and individual circumstances of each case. 126. Courts must not condone gross negligence, deliberate inaction, or casual indifference, for to do so would undermine the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium and destabilise the certainty that limitation WRIC No. 9214 of 2025 3 law seeks to secure. 235. An application seeking condonation of delay is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, on lofty ideals amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the statute." 9. The grievance raised by the applicants in proceedings U/S 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was with regard to the fact that his land was less than what was entered into the revenue records. While on the other hand the petitioners' land existing in gata No. 406 and 408 exceeded area and consequently 14 kari of land was deducted from Gata No. 406 and 408 and added it to the land of gata no. 407 of which respondent No. 3 is the recorded tenure holder. 10. The findings in this regard have been recorded by the Additional District Magistrate that after making aforesaid adjustments, the area of all the three plots became as per the area recorded in the revenue records. Even in the present writ petition, this Court does not find any averment that the area of the petitioners has been lesser as mentioned in the revenue records and accordingly substantial justice has been done when the order has been passed by the Additional District Magistrate. 11. The grievances raised by the petitioners are that of the land which has been transferred in favour of respondent No. 3, a grove exists but that shall not have any bearing on the merits of the controversy inasmuch as a person is entitled to the same area of land as has been recorded in the revenue records and accordingly it is for this reason, this Court finds that no interference is called for in the order of Additional District Magistrate or the order of Additional Commissioner (Administration). 12. For the aforesaid reasons, no ground for interference is made out. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. September 26, 2025/Ravi/ WRIC No. 9214 of 2025 4 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench