PALTU Vs. MUNNO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Gulab Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Harindra Prasad, learned counsel for the private respondents and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that khata No. 160 was recorded in the basic year in the name of Munnoo (respondent No. 1) and Dukhharan (father of petitioner). Against the basic year entry of the plot in question, an objection un-der Sec. 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. C.H. Act") was filed by respondent Nos. 7 to 9 with the prayer that khata No. 160, plot No. 795/13, area 1.400 kari, out of total area, 9.400 kari, be recorded in their favour. The compromise has taken place before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, accordingly, an order was passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 5/12/1965, giving share to the parties including the petitioner. Against the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dtd. 5/12/1965, time-barred appeal under Sec. 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed by the petitioner before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dtd. 28/9/1976 dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. Revision under Sec. 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 30/7/1977. Hence, the instant writ petition for the following relief :

(3.) This Court admitted the writ petition and granted interim order in the matter. In pursuance of the order of this Court, parties have exchanged their pleadings.