PRAHLAD SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri M.E. Khan for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 12.12.2013 by which the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 23.9.2013 granting ex parte interim order in the appeal under Rule 109 -A (3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules").

(2.) IT is alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner has obtained a patta of the land in dispute from the then Zamindar on 15.12.1951. However, his name was not recorded in the revenue record. When the village was placed under consolidation operation, it is alleged that an objection under section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was filed, which was registered as Case No. 207/1208. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 23.11.1987 allowed the objection of the petitioner and directed for recording his name over the land in dispute, deleting it from the khata of State of U.P. as well as Gaon Sabha as the land of usar and banjar. The petitioner filed an application under Rule 109 -A of the Rules for giving effect to the order dated 23.11.1987 in the year 2004 on which a report has been called for and a report from the record room was submitted stating therein that the original record of the case has been weeded out. However, on the basis of the copy of the order produced by the petitioner it was recommended for recording the name of the petitioner over the land in dispute. The report of the subordinate authorities has been accepted by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 25.7.2013.

(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 25.7.2013 has been passed under Rule 109 -A(1) of the Rules as such no appeal is maintainable under Rule 109 -A(3) of the Rules as the appeal as provided under this sub -rule is only against the order passed under Rule 109 -A(2). He further submits that order was passed on 25.7.2013 while the appeal was filed on 23.9.2013 as such the period of 15 days is provided for filing appeal and the appeal being time barred was liable to be dismissed in view of the mandatory provision of section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Instead of dismissing the appeal the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has illegally admitted the appeal and also granted interim order. He further submits that under the Act a duty has been cast upon the consolidation authorities to give effect to the orders passed under the Act and no limitation has been provided for giving effect to the order passed under the Act, Therefore, the order of Consolidation Officer dated 25.7.2013 directing to give effect to the order dated 23.11.1987 was well within his jurisdiction and there is no illegality in it. The appeal had no merit and was liable to be dismissed and in no circumstances the interim order could be passed. He further submits that the appeal was time barred as such so long as the delay was not condoned it should not have been registered and the petitioner was required to be heard on the question of condonation of delay.