GAON SABHA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 3.4.1979 and 28.11.1994, passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, i.e., the Dy. Director of Consolidation. Gorakhpur and the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation.,Gorakhpur.

(3.) In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petition, are that plot No. 19 was recorded in the basic year khatauni belonging to the Gaon Sabha and the nature of the land was shown to be the banjar land. The respondent No. 3. Bhagwan Sahai. filed objection under Section 9A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and claimed himself to be the grove holder (bhumtdhar) of the land in dispute. The claim of the respondent No. 3, Bhagwan Sahai, was contested by the Gaon Sabha. It is alleged by the Gaon Sabha that no tree was planted by the respondent No. 3. Bhagwan Sahai, nor the land in dispute retains the character of grove, rather it is banjar land and is the property of the gaon sabha. The Consolidation Officer was directed to make local inspection of the plot in dispute and submit his report. Accordingly, the Consolidation Officer made local inspection of the land in dispute and submitted his report that the land in dispute does not bear the character of grove. The Consolidation Officer, accordingly, on the basis of the evidence available on the record rejected the objection of the contesting respondent and gave a finding that the contesting respondent has failed to prove that he is grove holder (Bhumidhar). Aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Gorakhpur dated 21.1.1974 the contesting respondent preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer. Consolidation. Gorakhpur. The appeal was allowed ex parte and the finding of the Settlement Officer. Consolidation was that the respondent No. 3. Bhagwan Sahai, be recorded as grove holder with effect from 1369 fasli. The judgment of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was challenged in revision before the Dy. Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act by the petitioner No. 2. The revision was time-barred. The memo of revision was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act giving explanation for condonation of delay. The Dy. Director of Consolidation entertained the revision, summoned the record of the case, perused it and heard the parties. The aforesaid revision was dismissed as not maintainable as well as being time-barred. This judgment is under challenge in this writ petition.