RAM DAYAL Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned order dated 18.01.2021, the respondent No.1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jhansi has condoned the delay in filing the revision by the State.

(2.) The impugned order dated 18.01.2021, records that the order dated 12.04.1989 was brought in revision along with the delay condonation application. The initial order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 12.03.1983 allotting various plots including Plot No. 1160, etc. to the objectors (the petitioners). The notification under Sec. 52 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was thereafter published signifying the end of consolidation operations. The father of the petitioners carried the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 12.06.1983 in appeal in 1989. The appeal was delayed by 6 years. The service of summons was shown upon the Land Management Committee through its President. The then Pradhan tendered an application without taking permission of the competent State Authorities. The Settlement Officer Consolidation decided the matter without hearing the necessary parties. The learned appellate authority altered the valuation of various plots in an arbitrary manner. The exercise was clearly beyond jurisdiction, inasmuch as, it was undertaken long years after the publication of notification under Section52 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Various necessary parties including the person, who was allotted Chak No.20 were not impleaded in the appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation completely neglected to consider the best interests of the Gaon Sabha and the State Government as contemplated in Sec. 11-C of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The interests of the State were undermined.

(3.) The impugned order dated 18.01.2021 thereafter records specific findings that the order dated 12.04.1989 was vitiated by collusion and fraud. A number of members of the petitioner's family were Pradhans (including the petitioner No.1-Ram Dayal) at relevant times. The petitioners and their family members exercise considerable influence in the area. They prevented the aforesaid processes and orders from being made public and kept them under the wrap. The order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was not in the knowledge of the competent State authority. The knowledge of the aforesaid order came to the authorities when the respondents tried to take forcible possession over the land of the Gaon Sabha. The cause of delay was found to be sufficient by the revising court, and the delay was condoned by the impugned order dated 18.01.2021.