KRISHNA KANT Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the orders of the consolidation officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation by which objection of Petitioners under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been rejected as time barred.

(2.) FACTS of the case are that Petitioners filed objection under Section 9 claiming rights in the disputed land on 31 -12 -1976. They claimed that in Khata No. 106 they have share to the extent of 5.50 and their name should be recorded over the same. As there was delay in filing objection, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, supported by an affidavit was also filed. In para 6 of the affidavit, it was stated by Petitioners that about the wrong entry in the revenue papers they could only know on 28 -12 -1976 when they were informed that their name is not recorded in the revenue papers in the current year. Then the Petitioners made an inspection and have filed objection. Delay in filing objection is not deliberate. Consolidation Officer, however, by order dated 23 -6 -1977 refused to condone the delay. Reasons stated by the consolidation officer in his order dated 23 -6 -1977 are that no dispute was raised at the time of field to field Partal There has been no litigation after 1957 and the dispute has been raised at the stage of allotment of chaks. Time barred objection has been filed for harassment of the other side. From the order it appears that it was part of argument of the Respondents which was accepted and inoperative part the objection has been rejected. Aggrieved by the order of the consolidation officer, Petitioners filed revision No. 2855 under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Revision has been dismissed on 12 -8 -1977. Aggrieved by these orders this petition has been filed.

(3.) SECOND submission of learned Counsel for Petitioners is that publication under Section 9 of the Act took place on 11 -8 -1976 and the objection was filed by Petitioners on 31 -12 -1976. Thus the delay was a little more than four months. The Dy. Director of Consolidation, however, has wrongly observed that the delay is of 20 years. He has illegally taken into account the fact that name of Petitioners was not recorded in the revenue papers since 1363 -65 Fasli, i.e. for 20 years. The relevant period for consideration was from the date of the publication under Section 9. Shri Namwar Singh has relied on Jamuna Narayan Verma v. District Judge Lucknow : 1979 AWC 437, wherein it has been said that normally affidavit filed by a person authorised by a party, if remains uncontroverted, should be accepted, unless there is something on record to disbelieve the averment made in such affidavit. The second case cited by Shri Namwar Singh is : Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji : AIR 1987 SC 1353. He has also relied on a case Ram Narain v. D.D.C., 1990 RD 21, (Hindi Section).