DHARAM PAL SINGHI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Brajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Chandra Misra, holding brief of Sri D.D. Chauhan, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha, respondent No. 3 as well as learned Standing Counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the records also.

(2.) Through this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceedings of Revision No. 1134/2009 pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr and the orders dated 21.10.2009 and 29.10.2009, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

(3.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, without condoning delay, as required under the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, has entertained the revision and proceeded with the same. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation had rendered a judgment in favour of the petitioner on 12.6.2009. Assailing the said judgment, a revision was preferred on 28.8.2009. The Deputy Director of Consolidation could not have entertained the revision without dealing with the application for condonation of delay. No proper application and affidavit seeking condonation of delay was filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two judgments as. reported in Mst. Bilqees v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1989 RD 214 and Ram Baran v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and others, 1987 RD 89 in support of his submissions that the revisional Court must have taken into account the point of limitation while proceeding with the case.