BIBBJN Vs. ASSTT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Singh, J. By means of this writ petition, challenge is to the order of Assistant Director of Consolidation dated 23- 12-1992 and that of the Assis tant Consolidation Officer dated 25-3-1985 (Annexures-6 and 1) respectively.

(2.) THERE appears to be no dispute about certain basic facts and therefore, on their brief narration, writ petition can be conveniently disposed of.

(3.) IN response to the aforesaid, Sri Shah, learned Counsel submits that as the revision was filed after about seven years, the Revisional Court examined the grounds so given for condonation of delay and a finding has been recorded that no satisfactory explanation has been given for filing revision after such a long delay. Submission is that no fraud was played and she had put her thumb impression on the sale- deed and there after in the Court of Assistant Con solidation Officer, while entering into compromise and therefore, on the basis of sale-deed, name of respondent has been directed to be mutated, no excep tion can be taken to it. He submits that there is neither any illegality or perver sity and therefore, writ petition needs dismissal.