DEVISUNDER Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner filed a revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The revision was admittedly beyond time. The Petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision. In the said application the Petitioner alleged that although he applied for certified copy of the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation within time but the copy was delivered after a long gap and the date of preparation was wrongly shown in that copy prior to delivery. In order to substantiate his allegations he also filed an affidavit of the clerk of an advocate who applied for the certified copy of the judgment. The Dy. Director of Consolidation rejected the application for seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the affidavit filed in support of the application was incomplete and was filed in order to make an attempt to fill up the lacuna. Consequently the Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected the revision also being barred by time. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation failed to consider the allegations of the Petitioner made in the application and the affidavit and rejected his revision without considering merits of the application. According to him the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not apply his mind to the facts of the case. He has further urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation also failed to consider that even if the delay could not be condoned -whether it was a fit case for the exercise of suo moto power by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act or not. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Full Bench decision of this Court in Ramakant Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1974 A.L.J. 834.

(3.) I have carefully considered the respective contentions of the Learned Counsel for the parties. The Petitioner specifically made allegation in his affidavit that the copy prepared was ante -dated. His allegations were supported by an affidavit. of a clerk. It may be, as urged by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Deputy Director of Consolidation summoned the original record but unless there was something to indicate in the order giving reasons it cannot be accepted whether he applied his mind while examining that record. He did not mention in his order as to what was found in the original record and whether the facts found were contrary to the allegations made in the application. He has not considered the allegations made in the application at all. He has not given reasons which would have shown that he applied his mind to the facts and the allegations made by the Petitioner. It may be, that on inquiry the allegations made by the Petitioner may not be found to be correct but once he made such wild allegations it was necessary for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have inquired into the allegations and thereafter decided the application. Merely mentioning that the affidavit was incomplete, was not sufficient to reject the application. He has not indicated as to what was not complete in the affidavit. He has further not mentioned whether the allegations contained in the affidavit were correct or not. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation shows that he did not apply his mind to the facts of the case and without considering as to whether the allegations made by the Petitioners were correct or not rejected the revision.