SHESH DUTT Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for petitioners. The question which requires determination in this case is as to whether the petitioner made out a case of sufficient cause for condoning the delay where the petitioner did not file objection under Section 9(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act at appropriate stage. The objectors did not file objection initially and allowed the continuance of their mother's name but when mother tried to negotiate for transferring the land, the objectors filed objection that the name of mother is benami and prayed for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act for filing belated objection under aforesaid circumstances. The petitioners ought to have filed an objection soon after publication of records in village under Section 9 of the Act. If they did not file objection that their mother's name is recorded benami over the land in dispute then they can not be allowed to raise that objection after lapse of eleven years, mainly because their mother intended to transfer the land. It is not a ground on which delay can be condoned. The Consolidation Officer went wrong in condoning the delay on said ground. The Joint Director of Consolidation in revision has rightly interfered in that order and did not accept such a ground to be a valid ground for condoning the delay.

(2.) THE writ petition is dismissed.