STATE OF U P Vs. VIMLA SAMBHARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Writ Petitions have been filed by the State of U. P. through Forest Department. They are directed against the order of the consolidation authorities contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 9 to each of the writ petitions.

(2.) CERTAIN land was entered in the basic year Khatauni, at the start of the Consolidation operations, in the names of respondent no. 1 in each of these petitions. The Forest Department filed objections under section 9 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. These objections were to the effect that the land in question had already been notified as reserve forest under section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended in its application to this State and, as such, the opposite parties had no subsisting right in that land. These objections were dismissed in default of parties on 28-11-1975 and the basic year entries were accordingly left undisturbed by the Consolidation Officer. It is said on behalf of the State that the Forest Department officials were subsequently told by the officials of the Consolidation Department that the original objections filed by Forest Department were not available on record. As such, they filed fresh objections on 8-5-1976 in ignorance of the fact that the earlier objections had actually been dismissed in default on 28-11-1975. The new objections were rejected on 20-7-1977 on the ground that they were not maintainable because the original objections, filed by the Forest Department, had already been dismissed on 28-11-1975. Thereafter, restoration applications were filed on 18-8-1977. These were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 26-12-1977. Against this dismissal time-barred appeals were filed on 17-2-1978. The limitation for these appeals had expired 18 days earlier. Applications under section 5 Limitation Act were also made for condonation of delay in the filing of the appeals. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) held that the appeals were not maintainable and that the orders of the Consolidation Officer, rejecting the restoration applications on 18-8-1977, could only be challenged in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Thereafter, the State took the matter in revision to the Deputy Director of Consolidation who agreed with the Settlement Officer (Consolidation)'s view that no appeals were maintainable against the order dated 18-8-1977.

(3.) SRI Umesh Chandra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1 in writ petition no. 1904 of 1982, has urged several preliminary objections to the maintainability of this writ petition. The first objection is on the ground of laches. The writ petition has been filed about four weeks later than the usual period of 90 days. As no period of limitation has been prescribed for writ petitions and the period of 90 days is adhered to only as a matter of court practice, without any rigidity, learned counsel for opposite party has not pressed this objection.