RAMBALI Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by Rambali against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated H-12-1990. By the impugned order the Deputy Director has directed that benefit of section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act should be made available to the respondent Bagedu and bis objection may be treated as contest of title/ownership relating to the property which is converted into chak nos. 18, 19 and 22 during the consolidation operations and then the lis between the respondent and the petitioner may be decided in accordance with law by the Consolidation Officer at the relevant stage.

(2.) THE relevant facts are : A revision was filed by Bagedu before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging therein that it was only on a prohibition put by the pettitioner in the respondent's reaching the field that he smelt some foul play relating to the property righ's as a result of which the respondent got the records inspected which revealed that C. H. Form No. 23 purported then to have an order allegedly passed in the year 1972 recording the name of the predecessor of the petitioner in the said three chaks nos. IS, 19 and 22. It further transpired that from the enquiry no records or file could be traced as to justify the giving birth to the said order of mutation (Amaldarmad) in favour of the petioner. Consequently he filed the revision along with the prayer that the delay in filing the revision may be condoned as all proceedings, if any, have gone on illegally with the result that a genuine dispute has arisen relating to the rights of the respondent. In order to support the allegations made in the revision the respondent had filed enquiry reports from the office of the Consolidation Officer and also relevant authorities indicating that neither there was any file nor any order which may justify the existence of the mutation order (Amaldaramad) as indicated above. THE Deputy Director of Consolidation issued notice on the revision and after hearing the petitioner and the respondents directed that in view of the allegations made by the respondent bene St of section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act must be extended to him. It may be noted here that the respondent had claimed himself to be an illiterate villager.

(3.) THE argument advanced on the facts of the present case, though attractive lacks substance. Firstly, the Deputy Director of Consolidation is in charge of all proceedings that come within his territorial jurisdiction relating to the consolidation of village. Overall power has been conferred by the said section as may be readily seen by the section itself which is quoted hereunder :