GOLI Vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S.K. Pandey for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 1.8.2006 by which the delay in filing the objection under section 9 filed by Ashok Kumar has been condoned and the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 12.10.2011 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 15.12.2014 dismissing the appeal and revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order.

(2.) THE dispute between the parties relates to land recorded in khata No. 73 of Gopalganj alias Harinampur tappa Sumhakhor, pargana Haveli, distt. Gorakhpur. On basis consolidation record khata in dispute was recorded in the name of Goli, petitioner and Nathuram son of Jhinga. The petitioner filed an objection under section 9 of the Act claiming himself to the sole owner of the land in dispute. In this objection Manchari Devi alias Machi, respondent -4 was impleaded as opposite party. It is alleged that the parties entered into the compromise and written compromise was filed before the Consolidation Officer on 21.7.1995 which was duly verified by the Consolidation Officer on 23.8.1995. However in the meantime Ashok Kumar, respondent -5 filed a separate objection on 18.10.1995 along with delay condonation application and claimed his 1/2 share in the land in dispute. It has been stated by Ashok Kumar in his objection that Bhorai husband of Manchari Devi had adopted him as such he had half share in the land in dispute, while heirs of Nathu Ram were still alive and they were at present in America and Smt. Manchari Devi had no right to enter into the compromise with the petitioner. The application for delay condonation application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that Ashok Kumar had already put appearance in the objection filed by the petitioner on 7.9.1995 as such he had knowledge of the consolidation proceeding and there was no ground for condonation of delay. The delay condonation application was heard by the Consolidation Officer who by the impugned order dated 1.8.2006 held that as the one objection is pending in respect of the land in dispute as such the objection filed by Ashok Kumar is also liable to be decided along with other objections. On this ground he condoned the delay in filing the objection and consolidated both the cases. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in appeal which has been dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 12.10.2011 and revision filed against the aforesaid order has also been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 15.12.2014. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. So far as sufficiency of cause for condoning the delay is concerned, admittedly Ashok Kumar was minor at that time and the vakalatnama filed in the case of the petitioner was also through the guardian. The vakalatnama was filed on 8.9.1995 while the objection under section 9 was filed on 18.10.1995, about 40 days of filing of the vakalatnama the objection was filed and if the guardian has committed any illegality in watching the interest of minor then the Consolidation Officer has not committed any negligence in condoning the delay in filing the objection under section 9 of the Act.