MITHLESH KUMARI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION,KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 16.8.2012 and 24.9.2011 passed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

(2.) HEARD Sri Anand Mohan Pandey, holding brief of Sri K. Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(3.) 1.2010. Taking shelter of sub-section (2) of section 52 of the Act, he has further contended that the cognizance by the consolidation courts could only be taken with respect to the pending proceedings and no fresh proceeding could be instituted in view of sub-section (1) of section 52 of the Act. In his submissions, since in this case, no appeal was pending, before notification under section 52 of the Act, therefore, both the courts below have erred in passing the impugned orders. 4. Sri S.K. Mourya, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State contended that the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived in view of the provisions contained under section 53B of the Act, which provides for applicability of section 5 of the Limitation Act in the consolidation proceedings. In his submissions, if the statute provides right of filing appeal, along with an application for condonation of delay, in that circumstances, if the delay is condoned, the appeal would be treated well within time and in that eventuality, the provisions contained under section 52 of the Act would not be attracted as the appeal is nothing but a creation of statute and continuation of the suit proceedings. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.