TIRATH Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has come up before us on a reference by a learned Single Judge to consider the question 'whether the revisional authority under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act can allow revision petition without indicating whether the appeal filed by the Applicant in revision having been dismissed on the ground of limitation was illegally, incorrectly and improperly decided or the Appellant had sufficient cause for condonation of delay in perferring the appeal.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge referred to the decisions in the case of Basalat v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1983 ALJ 30 ; Ram Apt v. Deputy Director of Consolidation , 1980 ALJ 1160 and Hori Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation , 1982 ALJ 223 whets the view taken was that the revisional authority is entitled to allow too revision petition even where the appeal filed by the Applicant in revision was barred by time. The Learned Single Judge was of the view that if the revisional authority does not address itself to the question whether the appeal was incorrectly, illegally or improperly dismissed on the ground of limitation or whether the Appellant was entitled to condonation of delay in preferring the appeal, it has no jurisdiction to allow the revision petition, at the instance of an aggrieved party'. In order to consider the question it would be necessary to notice the relevant facts briefly.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit on behalf of Chincoo, Respondent No. 2 it was stated that the chaks proposed in favour of the Respondent were not permissible and the statement made by him could not be treated in the nature of a compromise. In any event if it was against law, it was void. Secondly, the improvement made during the consolidation proceedings could not be taken Into consideration. Thirdly, the revision can be filed ignoring the appellate order and the Joint Director in his inherent jurisdiction can rectify the chak.