SAHAB SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. RAMESHWAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question for determination in this writ petition is whether an appeal lay against the order of the Consolidation Officer before the SO (C). The petitioners filed an objection u/S. 9(A) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act along with an application u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objection by his order dated 7 -4 -1969 on two grounds: (1) that the objection was filed much after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing an objection and (2) also on the ground that there is no merit in the objection. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 7 -4 -1969, the petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the SO (C) on the ground that no appeal lay against the order rejecting the application u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act. On revision the DDC confirmed the order of the SO (C) by his order dated 18 -9 -1969. The petitioners have now challenged all the orders of the consolidation authorities by filing the present writ petition.

(2.) From the order of the Consolidation Officer it is quite clear that the objection was dismissed on both grounds, namely, on the ground of limitation and also on merits. Obviously such an order would be an order falling within the purview of S. 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. An appeal against such an order has been provided u/S. 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

(3.) The SO (C) as well as the DDC, however, relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Samharoo V. State of U.P. ( : 1967 AWR 220) held that no appeal lay against the order of the Consolidation Officer.