GHISAI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Singh, J. On revision of list, Sri Tripathi E. G. Bhai learned Advocate has been heard.

(2.) CHALLENGE in this petition is the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which revision filed by the respondents against the order of appellate authority condoning delay in filing appeal and permitting the parties to be heard on merits was allowed and the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation was set aside. After notification of the consolida tion, petitioner claimed that a time barred claim was filed by respondents which is said to have been decided by means of compromise, petitioner filed appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation which was delayed for about one year. The Set tlement Officer, Consolidation condoned the delay in filing appeal after recording a finding that in the compromise, there is a thumb impression of petitioner, although in appeal there is signature. Against the order condoning delay, a revision was filed by the respondents which has been allowed.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment of the revising authority is hereby quashed. Appellate Authority is directed to revive the appeal and to decide the same on merits, in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity of hear ing to both sides, preferably within a pe riod of four months from the date of pres entation of a certified copy of this order, which petitioner undertakes to file before the appellate authority, within a period of three weeks from today. Petition Allowed. .