SHAMI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Mohd. Faiz, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 on admission.

(2.) Challenge in the instant writ petition is order dtd. 12/8/2021 (Annexure No.-9) passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no.1) in Revision No. 36 of 2021 and order dtd. 15/3/2021 (Annexure No.-7) passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation (respondent no.2) in Appeal No. 661 of 2020 and order dtd. 24/10/1992 (Annexure No.-5) passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer (respondent no.3) in Case No. 538.

(3.) Factual matrix of the present case is that the property in question i.e. Chak No. 298 was recorded in the name of Subhash Chandra (father of petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 and respondent no.4). During consolidation proceedings Subhash Chandra had died and in his place name of Vhaibhav Swaroop (respondent no.4), under guardianship of his mother Smt. Beena Rani, has been ordered to be mutated in the revenue record over the aforesaid Chak No. 298 vide order dtd. 26/9/1992 passed by respondent no.3 in Case No. 538. Aforesaid order dtd. 26/9/1992 was implemented in the consolidation record on 24/10/1992 (Annexure No.-5). A highly belated appeal dtd. 5/11/2020 (Annexure No.-6) has been preferred by the present petitioners including one of their sisters, namely, Pallavi (later on she died). Aforesaid appeal was dismissed on the ground of laches vide order dtd. 15/3/2021 (Annexure No.-7) passed by respondent no.2. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have preferred revision dtd. 17/3/2021 (Annexure No.-8) assailing the order dtd. 15/3/2021. Respondent no.1 has affirmed the aforesaid order passed by respondent no.2 by dismissing the revision on merits vide its order dtd. 12/8/2021 (Annexure No.-9).