High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Vijai Bahadur v. D.D.C. And Others - WRIT - B No. 37001 of 2007  RD-AH 13878 (10 August 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37001 of 2007
Vijai Bahadur ............ Petitioner
District Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Ghazipur and others ............. Respondents
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri J.L. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hari Lal Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
Challenge in this petition has been made to the order dated 13.7.2007 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation allowing Section 5 application and condoning the delay in filing the appeal, on the ground that revision is not maintainable against an inter-interlocutory order. Against the order dated 13.7.1979 passed by the Consolidation Officer in proceedings under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act (for short 'the Act), respondent no.3 filed a time barred appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Condonation of delay was sought on the ground that he was employed in PAC and retired as Company Commander on 1.8.2005 and during his service he always remained outside. It was further pleaded that petitioner and respondent no.3 who are real brothers were living in the state of jointness and the entire village property was looked after by the petitioner and taking advantage of the said fact, the petitioner got his name recorded as co-sharer over the land in dispute. After superannuation, he came to the village about 4-5 months back and some days ago it came to his knowledge that petitioner got his name recorded as co-tenure holder of plot no. 408 which was his exclusive holding. After attaining knowledge of the said fact, when the records were searched it transpired that the record of the said case was not available. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 18.6.2007 finding that the explanation for delay in filing the appeal was sufficient, condoned the same. The petitioner went up in revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 13.7.2007 on the ground that it was directed against an interlocutory order and hence not maintainable.
In writ petition no.111 of 2006 decided on 3rd November, 2006 I have already taken a view that an order condoning the delay is in the nature of interlocutory since it does not touch the merit of the case and as such the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act was not maintainable.
In view of the aforesaid, no illegality has been committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner as not maintainable. Challenge in the petition has also been made to the order dated 28.6.2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. A perusal of the same goes to show that Settlement Officer Consolidation finding that the order was passed by the Consolidation Officer without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the contesting respondent who was living outside the village in connection with his service and as such could not get knowledge of the proceedings rightly condoned the delay and there appears to be no infirmity in the said order.
The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed in limine.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.