HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 38420 of 2026 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dhiraj Srivastava, Vipul Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Bhupati Das (Since Deceased) And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 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 िबन्दुओं पर उभय पक्ष के िवद्वान अिधवक्ताओं के तकर् पूणर् बहस सुने गये। यद्यिप राज्य सरकार की ओर से मा० उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश के अनुक्रम में शपथ पत्र के साथ िवलम्ब मषर्ण की प्राथर्ना िकये जाने में अत्यािधक िवलम्ब िकया गया है। तथािप प्रकरण का गुण दोष पर िवचारण िकये जाने की दृिष्ट से पिरसीमा अिधिनयम की धारा 5 का लाभ देते हुये अपील को सुनवाई हेतु ग्रहण िकया जाना न्यायिहत में उिचत 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 2 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 3 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. September 23, 2026 AK WRIC No. 38420 of 2026 4 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad