NATHU KHAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Sri Pankaj Tripathi, holding brief of Sri H.S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Nobody appears in revised call for the private respondents. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 24.9.1976 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Case No. 1635 Nathu Khan v. Yaseen and others, and order dated 12.3.76 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 2939 Nathu Khan v. Yaseen. vide order dated 24.9.1974, petitioner's objection under Section 9A-2 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in short the Act') has been dismissed as barred by time whereas by the subsequent order dated 12.3.1976 petitioner's revision has also been dismissed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this case are that it appears the petitioner, herein, has filed an objection under Section 9A-2 of the Act which was barred by time, therefore an application for condonation of delay was also filed. The Consolidation Officer has rejected the application on the ground that the reasons stated in the affidavit are not sufficient to condone the delay. It is also noted that notification under Section 9 was published on 31.10.1973 and the village was denotified on 16.4.1974. The petitioner has filed objection on 19.9.1975 taking ground that earlier he was agitating the matter before the revenue Courts and thereafter he has been advised to file an objection before consolidation Court as village has gone under consolidation operation. The Consolidation officer found that the delay was not properly explained, therefore rejected the application for condonation of delay. The petitioner has filed revision that too has been dismissed.

(3.) It may be noticed that with regard to the land in dispute, the petitioner has filed Suit No. 1059 of 1973 under Section 229B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against Yasin and Zulum Khalil sons of Rasool Bux, Mohammad Raza and Bashir (now represented by opposite party II set). The said suit was decreed on 12.7.1973. However, it appears a restoration application was filed by the respondents and without there being any notice to the petitioner, the decree dated 12.7.1973 was set aside and the suit was restored to its original number. After contest, the aforesaid suit was abated before the consolidation Courts in view of sub-section 2 of Section 5 of the Act. It appears the petitioner has filed suit after notification of Section 4 of the Act whereas he should have filed objection before the consolidation authorities. It would further appear that on the legal advice of the counsel instead of filing objection before the consolidation Courts the suit was filed before the revenue Court and ultimately the suit stood abated. Thereafter, the petitioner was advised to file objection before the consolidation Courts and pursuant thereto, he filed an objection alongwith an application for condonation of delay which was rejected saying that the delay has not been properly explained.