SURYANATH SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BALLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 27.5.1999 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Ballia.

(2.) The brief facts, as stated in the petition, which are relevant for the purpose of the present petition are that notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made in respect of village Chchitauni Ander, Pargana Lakhneshwar, district Ballia in the year 1960. A compromise was filed between the parties on 26.4.1968 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer in proceeding under Section 9 of the Act with regard to khata Nos. 34 and 84 in which it was stated that the plots recorded under the above khatas are ancestral property and the petitioner had 1/4 share. The compromise was given effect to by order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 6.7.1968 and petitioner was recorded as co-tenant in the khata in question. The petitioner remained in possession of his share. It is stated that the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 6,7.1968 was never challenged before any consolidation authorities. Thereafter notification under Section 6 (2) of the Act was issued regarding the village in question.

(3.) It is stated that respondent No. 2, Sadhu Saran Singh has filed a time-barred appeal against the order dated 6.7.1968 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The appeal was dismissed on 11.6.1997 by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The aforesaid appeal was filed along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act after 28 years. The cause shown by the appellant for condonation of delay was that the appellant was in service of R. P. F. and after retirement, he had gone on pilgrimage for mental peace and remained in Haridwar attending satsang. The agricultural work was being done by his wife. But when he came to know that the area has been reduced, then he filed an appeal. The objection was filed by the petitioner that on 23.9.1982 respondent No. 2 executed a sale deed, therefore, he had knowledge of the order 14 years earlier and the delay of 14 years has not been explained. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on the ground that when there has been notification under Section 6 of the Act, the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to entertain any application, appeal in respect of the land for which notification under Section 6 of the Act has been made. It is further stated that the respondent No. 5, Sadhu Saran Singh preferred revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The revision has been decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 27.5.1999.