BHULAI Vs. D D C PRATAPGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. P. Yadav, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) NONE appears for opposite party No. 3.

(3.) THE petitioner filed an objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Act alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. THEre is a dispute with regard to the date of filing of this objection. According to the petitioner, it was filed on 6-11- 1977, whereas the learned Consolidation Officer has held that it was actually filed sometime in November, 1978, after the de- notification of the village under Section 52 of the Act. However, the opposite party No. 3 opposed the prayer of the petitioner. THE Consolidation Officer held that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay as the petitioner has himself received the notice on 28-9-1971 on behalf of his father, Bisesar, which was issued from the Court of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and, therefore, there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Some other grounds were also mentioned. THE order passed by the Consolidation Officer was confirmed by the Deputy Director (Consolidation) in revision under Section 48 of the Act.