RAM CHARAN Vs. ZILADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), dated 3. 9. 1990 whereby he condoned the delay in filing the appeal by respondents No. 4 and 5 and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation Banda, dated 7. 1. 1992, affirming the said order in revision.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that plot No. 588 area 1 bigha 9 biswas situate in village Palhari, Tehsil and district Banda, was recorded in the name of the petitioner and Puchuva in the basic year Khatauni. Smt Parvati, mother of opposite parties 4 and 5 was entered in class IX as trespasser. Smt. Parvati filed an objection under Section 9-A of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on the allegation that she had become sirdar by virtue of adverse possession. THE petitioner filed an ap plication for cross-examination of wit nesses. THE application was rejected by the Consolidation Officer on 3. 9. 1977. THE petitioner filed revision against the said order. THE revision was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 8. 10. 1985 and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer, Banda to decide the case in accordance with law. After remand the notices were sent to respondents No. 4 and 5 as by the time Smt. Parvati Devi had died and respon dents No. 4 and 5 were substituted. THE notices were also published in the newspaper. As respondents No. 4 and 5 did not appear, the Consolidation Officer proceeded ex parte and dismissed the objection on 30. 7. 1986 which was filed by Smt Parvati Devi, mother of respondents No. 4 and 5.

(3.) I have heard Sri R. R. Shivhare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. D. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents.