BABU LAL Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against the order dated 31 -3 -84 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad in a revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act filed by Hira Lal, Respondent No. 3 against an order dated 23 -4 -82 refusing to condone the delay in his appeal pertaining to a land which has vested in the Gaon Sabha. The facts of the case are that admittedly the land has vested in the Gaon Sabha, as has been held by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Appeal was filed by Respondent No. 3. He was neither a member of the Land Management Committee nor he was Pradhan or Up Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha.

(2.) IT has been urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Respondent No. 3 has got no authority to file the appeal. The appeal was also held to be time -barred. It was also urged that: Respondent No. 3 Hira Lal is neither a Member of the Gaon Sabha noir Pradhan or Up Pradhan. Therefore, he could not file an appeal on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, Consequently, the appeal or the revision filed by him was not maintainable. Hence the same has been incorrectly allowed. The learned Counsel has relied on the case of Sita Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1982 ALJ 76. In that case the controversy was about the cancellation of the lease -deed granted by the Gaon Sabha and the controversy was considered during the consolidation operations, hence the main point for consideration was whether the Consolidation authorities can adjudicate upon the validity of the deed. Undoubtedly it was held that unless any body has been authorised to file objection on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, in view of Paras 125 and 131 of the Oaon Sabha Manual, he cannot file objection. But in the instant case admittedly the land has vested in the Gaon Sabha, hence for protection of the land that has vested in the Gaon Sabha the Legislature was conscious in enacting Section 11 -C of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. This section has been inserted by U.P. Act No. 34 of 1974. The statutory provisions of Section 11 -C of the Act are reproduced below for the sake of convenience:

(3.) THE order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in treating the revision to be within time and directing the case to be decided by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is perfectly correct and substantial justice has been done by remanding the case so that the appeal may be decided on merits.