RAM RATI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The controversy in this writ petition is as to whether after issue of Notification under Section 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short the Act), the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal can be entertained and decided by the Con solidation Authorities.

(2.) THE controversy arises on the fol lowing facts. THE petitioner filed objection that she is a tenure- holder of the land in dispute. THE objection was allowed by the Consolidation Officer. In pursuance of the order of Consolidation Officer a reference was made to the Deputy Director of Con solidation which was accepted by him. THE village was de-notified under Section 52 of the Act on 20-6-1981. THE petitioner sold her rights to Ramraj Singh and Balram Singh. THEy filed an application for muta tion of their names. This mutation applica tion was allowed by the Assistant Con solidation Officer on 28-3- 1993. On 21-8-1995 an appeal was filed on behalf of the State of U. P. and Gaon Sabha against the order of the Consolidation Officer, whereby the objection of the petitioner was allowed. In the memo of appeal it was stated that the Gaon Sabha was owner of the property in dispute. THE petitioner and Kamal s/o Iqbal were never in possession and could not have acquired rights over the land of Gaon Sabha. THE applicants also filed an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. An affidavit was filed by the Pradihan of the Gaon Sabha explain ing the delay in filing the appeal. THE petitioner raised an objection that the ap plication for condonation of delay was not maintainable. THE Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation passed an order on 20-3-1997 that the matter relating to the condonation of delay can be considered after the parties adduced evidence in the case. It was further observed that the ques tion as to whether, the application for condonation of delay be decided first, will be considered at a later stage. THE petitioner filed the revision against this order before the Deputy Director of Con solidation. Respondent No. 1 has dis missed the revision by the impugned order dated 21-8-1997.

(3.) LEARNED Counselfor the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision Hari Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and others, 1989 RD. 281, wherein it was held that if the village is denotified under Section 52 of the Act, the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not entitled to exercise his power by deciding reference under Section 48 (3) of the Act. In this case the Court was not considering a case when a party files an application to condone the delay in submitting a matter or files an application for restoration of the case decided ex pane. This question came up for consideration in Radhey Shyam and another v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation Bhadohi and others, \ 996 RD 231. The case of Hari Ram (supra) was considered and distinguished. In that case in the reference proceedings a portion of land was to be given to the S. S. P. , Varanasi, mentioned in the letter dated 27-10-1975 for construction of the quarters for Police Station. On reference sent to the Deputy Director of Consoldiation he passed the order on 30-6-1992. An application was filed to recall the said order. The conten tion raised that Deputy Director of Con solidation had no jurisdiction after denotification of the village under Section 52 of the Act to recall the order, was repelled. It was held that he had jurisdic tion to recall an exparte order.