SHANKAR LAL, SON OF HAR CHAND, R/O VILLAGE CHARORA MUSTAFABAD, PARGANA BARAN, DISTT. BULANDSHAHR Vs. DIR. OF CONSOLIDATION, MEERUT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the orders of the consolidation authorities in a case arising out of an objection filed by Chhidda, opposite party No. 3, under Sec. 10 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) Chhidda's objection, filed on July 9, 1960, was that the name of Shankar Lal, the petitioner here, should be expunged from Khata No. 413 of village Khad Mohan Nagar, Pargana Siana, in the district of Bulandshahr. Later, on June 6, 1961, Chhidda, together with two of his brothers, Ram Dass and Raghubir, opposite parties Nos. 5 and 6, filed an application stating that the brothers wanted to remain joint. That application does not say that the applicants wanted the objection of Chhidda against Shankar Lal to be dismissed. It is evident that the application and a statement alleged to have been made by Chhidda and his brothers subsequently appeared quite unconnected. Moreover, it also appeared that statements of the applicants were not recorded separately, but an order of the Consolidation Officer showing that such statements were made was recorded on the back of the application. After recording the supposed joint statement, in the manner mentioned above, the Consolidation Officer dismissed the objection of Chhidda on June 6, 1961. It is not known whether this dismissal took place in the presence of the parties or afterwards. It is also not known when Chhidda and his brothers came to know of the dismissal of Chhidda's objection against Shankar Lal.

(2.) All we know is that an appeal war preferred, on Jan. 8, 1962, by Chhidda and three of his brothers, including Babu Ram who had not filed any application at all before the Consolidation Officer. This appeal, under Sec. 11 (1) of the Act, filed before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), was time-barred on the face of it. Such an appeal can only be preferred within 30 days of the date of the order. But, Sec. 53-B of the Act, which was on the statute book at the relevant time, enabled delay in filing an appeal to be condoned by applying the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act to such appeals. It appears that Chhidda and his brothers had filed an affidavit together with the memorandum of appeal.

(3.) The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dismissed the appeal of Chhidda and his brothers on March 14, 1962 on merits without going into the question whether the appeal was barred by time. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) held that Babu Ram, one of the appellants, had no right of appeal whatsoever as he had not filed any objection before the Consolidation Officer. So far as Chhidda and his brothers, Raghubir and Ram Dass, were concerned, the Settlement Officer held that the statement recorded by Consolidation Officer, purporting to have been made on behalf of Chhidda and his brothers, was rightly treated by the Consolidation Officer as a withdrawal of the objection of Chhidda against Shankar Lal altogether. The Settlement Officer also took into account that the appellants had not filed any evidence in support of any objection for nearly 3 years. The Settlement Officer did not go into the merits of the entries as there was no evidence before him on this point. The Settlement Officer treated the order passed by the Consolidation Officer as a proper order of dismissal of Chhidda's objection resulting from an admission by the appellants of the rights of Shankar Lal. This supposed admission was the only evidence in the case about the rights of the two sides.