DHARMDEV Vs. CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Abhai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Promod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 10, Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent- Gaon Sabha and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer under Sec. 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") on 15/12/1989 for recording the name of petitioner / Dharmdev in the place of Naubat. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dtd. 15/12/1989 time barred appeal has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 10. In the aforementioned appeal, appellant No. 1 has expired, accordingly, substitution application has been filed along with the prayer for condonation of delay, if any. Substitution application has been allowed vide order dtd. 7/11/2019. Revision filed by the petitioner against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Hence, this writ petition for the following relief :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the highly time barred appeal filed by the private respondent cannot be entertained by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. He further submitted that there was inordinate delay in filing the appeal, as such, the appeal should be dismissed on the ground of limitation. He further submit-ted that the substitution application filed in appeal was also time barred, as such, the substitution application should be rejected on the ground of limitation.