RAM PYARI DEVI Vs. SETTLEMENT OFFICER OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Vijay Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot Nos. 1971/1 and 1972/1 situated at Village-Shikarpur, Pargana and Tahsil- Shikarpur, Distrit-Bulandshahr. According to the petitioner he is 2/3 share holder of the aforementioned plots. Against the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer, petitioner filed a time barred chak objection before the Consolidation Officer under Sec. 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act"). The aforementioned chak objection was registered as Case No. 405, under Sec. 21(1) of U.P.C.H. Act. The prayer made in the chak objection to allot the chak to the petitioner on plot No. 1971 according to his share as plot No. 1971 is situated adjacent to pitch road. Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 22/11/2004 dismissed the aforementioned chak objection filed by the petitioner. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dtd. 22/11/2004 time barred chak appeal was filed by the petitioner under Sec. 21(2) of U.P.C.H. Act, which was registered as Appeal No. 1222 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The aforementioned chak appeal was heard by Settlement Officer of Consolidation who vide order dtd. 31/10/2007 dismissed the petitioner's appeal after condonation of delay recording finding of fact that appellant has already been allotted chak on her original plot No. 1971. Against the appellate order dtd. 31/10/2007, time barred chak revision was filed by the petitioner before Deputy Director of Consolidation under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act, which was registered as Revision No. 308. The aforementioned revision was heard and dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 30/6/2014 on the ground of limitation as there was inordinate delay in filing the revision and no application for condonation of delay under Sec. 5 of Limitation Act was filed by revisionist. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner for the following reliefs:

(3.) This writ petition was filed in the year 2014 and the same was dismissed vide order dtd. 24/7/2014 in absence of learned counsel for the petitioner.