KEDAR Vs. ASSTT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ petition is directed against the order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Banda, dated 21-3-1985, whereby he rejected the revision of the petitioners under section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, holding it to be barred by time.

(2.) THE order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was impugned in the revision, was passed on 31-7-1981 and the revision, giving rise to the instant petition, was filed on 18-12-1981. THE revision was accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, supported by an affidavit sworn by Data Ram, petitioner no. 8, in this writ petition. In para 2 of the said affidavit cause for delay in filing the revision was stated to be lack of knowledge of the effect of the order. It was stated that the deponent was away to Gorakhpur and when he came back from Gorakhpur on 9-12-1981, on leave, only then he could know that the chaks of the revisionists (petitioners before this Court) had been ' spoiled '. On coming to know of this fact the deponent immediately applied for the certified copy of the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation and the same was delivered to him on 14-12-1981. He reached Banda for the purpose of filing revision on 18-12-1981 because during the period between 14-12-1981 and 18-12-1981 he was making arrangement for money and thereafter he fell ill on account of fever.

(3.) THE sufficiency of the cause and reality of the cause are two different things. In case where the court is called upon to adjudicate upon the sufficiency of the cause it may take liberal view in the matter and that is what the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners lay down but where the court is called upon to adjudicate upon the truthfulness of the cause the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners may be of no avail. Here the Assistant Director of Consolidation declined to condone the delay on the ground that the cause shown on behalf of the petitioners was not believable and in doing so he did not commit any error.