SIDDH NARAYAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) DISPUTE relates to plot No. 288 situate in village Nigdilpur, Pargana Nawabganj, District Allahabad which was recorded in the name of Anand Behari Maharaj Virajman Mandir trust through its 'sarwarakar'. Trust is stated to be a private trust. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land in dispute from one Vishwambhar Narayan who is stated to have been authorised by the trust for disposal of the property in dispute by the management of the Trust to secure money for maintenance of Mandir. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 12 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the 'act'), for mutation of his name which was allowed by Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 30th April, 1991. The village came to be denotified under Section 52 of the Act on 8. 7. 2004. Gaon Sabha/ respondent No. 5 filed a time barred appeal challenging the order dated 30th April, 1991 on 5th October, 2006. Petitioner filed an objection regarding maintainability of the appeal after denotification under Section 52 of the Act. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 25th June, 2007 overruled the preliminary issue raised by the petitioner holding that even after de- notification under Section 52 of the Act the appeal was maintainable. The petitioner went up in revsion. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18th July, 2007 dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) THE question for consideration in this case is whether an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer could be filed, entertained and proceeded with even after notification under Section 52 of the Act has been issued.