SHRIKANT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2/. 9. 1996 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE Prescribed Authority, by order dated 19. 2. 1976 declared the disputed plot as surplus land treating it to be the holding of Indira Dev. THE petitioner filed appeal against the said order on 28. 9. 1995 alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It appears that the petitioner filed photostat copies of certain documents. THE Government counsel objected to the filing of the photostat copies. Respondents No. 1 dismissed the appeal on the ground that photostat copies were inadmissible in evidence. It was further observed that the counsel for the petitioner had not submitted written or oral arguments in spite of repeatedly time being granted to him. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) IN Smt. Jamila Khatoon and others v. D. D. C. and others, 1971 ALJ 843, it was held that the provisions of Evidence Act are applicable in the proceedings before consolidation authorities. They are to be treated as court while adjudicating the dispute between the parties. The court relied upon S. 38 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which provides that the consolidation authorities shall have all such powers and rights and privileges as are vested in a civil court on the occasion of any action, in respect of (a) the enforcing of the attendance of the witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise and the issue of a commission or request to examine witnesses abroad; (b) compelling anyone of the production of any document; (c) punishing of persons guilty of contempt.