RAM RUP Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION JAUNPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the order dated 22-1-91 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation in Revision under section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short the Act), holding the appeal before the Settlement Officer consolidation to be maintainable against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 5-12-89 rejecting the objection and also the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of Certiorari.

(2.) AN objection under Section 20 of the Act was filed by Ram Raj, respondent no. 2 along with an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, which was rejected by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 12-9-89 (ANnexure 1 to the petition), as there was no justification for condonation of dealy, and the objection was also rejected. Against that order an appeal was preferred, but the same was dismissed as not maintainable. Against that order revision was filed which was allowed by the impugned order dated 21-1-91 holding that the appeal was maintainable.

(3.) IN Samharoo v. State of U. P., 1967 ALJ 463, 1967 RD 201 a Division Bench of this court held that where an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed, that would not become an order under section 9, 9-A or 10 of the Act, hence it was not appealable under section 11 of the Act. The reason was that an application under section 5 precedes the objection, in case it was allowed, objection can be decided on merits. Simply by allowing the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act no appeal would lie, unless the objection itself was either rejected or allowed, the conclusion that where an objection has also been dismissed along with the application, against that order rejecting the objection the appeal would certainly lie. IN the case of Ram Autar v. Ramratan (supra), this court declined to issue the writ prayed for as in that the consolidation officer rejected the application under section 5 of limitation act as no sufficient cause was made out, hence the appeal was certainly not maintainable before the Settlement Officer consolidation and that was the view taken by the Asstt. Director of Consolidation which was maintained.