PANNA LAL Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the order dated 24-9-90 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision under section 48 of the consolidation of Holdings Act, (for short the Act), condoning the delay in filing the objection under section 20 of the Act by the respondent, is sought to be quashed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the Consolidation Officer has rejected the application of petitioner under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the objection under section 20 of the Act by order dated 10-5-90 and against that order a revision was filed. In that even though an observation was made that there was no justification to interfere in the reasons assigned by the Consolidation officer for condonation of delay which requires interference, but the delay has been condoned by stating some more facts inter alia, that during consolidation operations fresh rights are created the tenure holders are deprived of their original holdings. Reliance was placed on Collector v. Mst Katiji 1987 RD 416, where the delay was condoned with the observation that a lenient view should be taken in considering the expression 'sufficient cause'. Ram Charan v. Dy. Director of consolidation, 1982 RD 109 was also referred.

(3.) I am in respectful and complete agreement with the observations made in the aforesaid cases.