BALRAM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION, AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Arvind Vashisht, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Ratan lal, learned counsel for the respondents no. 4 and 5.

(2.) PRESENT writ petition is filed assail­ing the order dated 07.03.2008 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar and order dated 03.10.2006 passed by Settlement Officer, Consolida­tion, Haridwar.

(3.) LEARNED Settlement Officer, Con­solidation in first paragraph of his judg­ment dated 03.10.2006 observed that benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for delay in filing the appeal is granted to the appellant and now, the appeal would be heard on merit. Meaning thereby the learned Appellate Court in paragraph 1 of the judgment condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, for the rea­sons best known to him, he has dismissed the appeal on the ground that appeal was filed after long period, hence, same is net maintainable. Both the findings are con­tradictory to each other. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.10.2006 petitioner pre­ferred revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision on the ground that appeal was filed after 11 years. Learned Appellate Court as well as Revisional Court committed grave error of law by dismissing the appeal and re vision on the ground that appeal was filed after 11 years from the order of Consoli­dation Officer. Once, delay was con­doned by the Appellate Court as dis­cussed herein before, it was not open to the Appellate and Revisional Court to dis­miss the appeal and revision saying that same is not maintainable after 11 years.