RAM PHER Vs. RAJ PATI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Assistant Consolidation Officer has decided the case on the basis of conciliation by order dated 13th August, 1969 (Annexure -1 to the petition). Thereafter an appeal was filed which was much belated and the same was allowed by order dated 28.8.78 condoning the delay just on the ground that one Bhagelu died when the case was pending before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, hence his heirs could not be represented and as such conciliation appears to be illegal. No other ground for condensation of delay was not stated nor any other satisfaction of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was recorded. Thereafter the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer which was decided on meats and was dismissed by order dated 19.8.71. The Petitioner preferred revision against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) which has been dismissed by order dated 17.10.80. It is against the order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) allowing the appeal and the provisional order that the present petition has been filed.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that in revision he had filed number of documents referred to in Para 32 of the writ petition and those documents are (i) copy of voter list of 1970 showing that Bhagelu was a voter in the year 1970, (ii) copy of voter list of 1973 showing the same fact, (iii) copy of death register of 1973 showing that Bhagelu died on 19.10.73 and (iv) extract of Khartoum for the year 1374 to 1376 Fails showing that the name of Bhagelu was recorded over plot No. 450 vide order dated 5.12.1970 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in case No. 1357. These documents were accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on payment of Rs. 10/ - as cost, but while deciding the revision he did not refer to those documents nor he has taken into account the legal effect of those documents. At least the extract of death register indicating that Bhagelu died on 19.10.1973 was very much material to indicate that actually Bhagelu did not die when the case was pending before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the same was decided on the basis of conciliation by order dated 13.8.69, rather Bhagelu died much thereafter. Hence the order condoning the delay passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on the assumption that Bhagelu died during the pentene of the case before the Assistant Consolidation Officer was not warranted. Learned Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand tried to support the impugned orders.

(3.) I am accordingly of the view that the order passed in revision suffers from manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record and deserves to be quashed.