BASHISTH SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION MIRZAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The short question that boils down for consideration in the present petition instituted by the petitioner is whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur, was justified in condoning the delay by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 4.7.2002.

(2.) BACKGROUND of the controversy in its essential details is that opposite parties 2 to 6 had filed highly belated joint objection under Section 9 of the U.P.C.H. Act with accompanying prayer that plots 56 and 70 be excluded from consolidation operation underway in the village. The petitioner preferred counter objection to the aforestated objection on the ground that contesting opposite parties had awareness of the proceedings and the objections were liable to be rejected. The matter ended up in decision by the Consolidation Officer leaning in favour of the petitioner. The matter escalated into filing of appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and thereafter, a revision came to be preferred before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which culminated in decision leaning against the petitioner and this has led to institution of the present petition in this Court.

(3.) IT would transpire from a perusal of the judgment/order of the Consolidation Officer that it had turned down the objection mainly on the ground that day to day delay was not explained and that some of the plots had been earmarked for public purpose and contesting opposite parties must be aware of it. I have also scanned the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation for any possible infirmity and in my view, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly converged to the conclusion that the Consolidation Officer erred in dismissing the objection/application of the contesting opposite parties under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which according to the Deputy Director of Consolidation was dealt with in a summary/cursory manner without delving into the merits. IT would also transpire from a perusal of the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that he reckoned with the affidavits filed by both the parties at prolix length to the effect that contesting opposite parties were at the relevant time residing in different district and could not be deemed to have awareness about the publication of records under Section 9 of the Act pertaining to the village concerned. For his conclusion, he also held that contesting opposite parties were not apprised of the consolidating operation and that this was the causative factor for filing belated objection.