RAMESH KUMAR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, for the petitioner.

(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 26.03.2014, rejecting the application of the petitioner for deciding delay condonation application first, before hearing arguments on merit in the appeal and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16.07.2014, dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order, arising out of proceeding under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 11 of the Act provides 21 days limitation for filing the appeal against the order of Consolidation Officer. Although by virtue of Section 53B of the Act, Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 has been applied in the proceedings under the Act but so long as delay in filing the appeal is not condoned, a time barred appeal cannot be treated a valid appeal nor it can be heard on merit. Issue relating to limitation is an issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court. So long as delay is not condoned, Settlement Officer Consolidation has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal on merit. Otherwise also, if delay is not condoned, there will no obligation on the respondent in the appeal to argue it on merit. Orders of respondents -1 and 2 are illegal and liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Bhagwat Vs. DDC and others,, 1990 RD 162, Prabhu Vs. DDC and others, : 2013 (118) RD 48, Jais Lal Vs. DDC and others, : 2014 (122) RD 118 and Smt. Munaki Devi and another Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others, 1990, RD, 243, in which it has been held that delay condonation application should be decided first and in case delay is condoned, then arguments in appeal on merit be heard otherwise the appeal be dismissed as time barred.