VIKRAM NATH, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri U. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Sri Alok Yadav, Advocate; Sri S. C. Kushwaha, learned counsel representing respondent no.4; learned Standing Counsel respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri V. K. Singh, Advocate, representing the Gaon Sabha.
(2.) AN order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 28.4.1978. The said order was apparently modified vide order dated 26.02.1982 in reference proceedings upon an application filed by respondent no.4. The effect of the reference order dated 26.02.1982 would directly effect the order dated 28th April, 1978. Aggrieved by the said order dated 26.02.1982 the petitioner filed two appeals before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation came to the conclusion that the order dated 26.02.1982 was without jurisdiction and accordingly set aside the said order vide order dated 31.05.2005. The Settlement Officer Consolidation further made an observation that in case respondents 3 and 4 were aggrieved by order dated 28th April, 1978 it would be open to them to file appeal and further observed that in case any appeal is filed as it would be beyond the prescribed limitation, the question of condoning the delay would be a considerable question. Petitioner who was the appellant before the Settlement Officer Consolidation was aggrieved by the observations made with regard to the liberty given to the respondents no.3 and 4 to file appeal and also that their application for condonation of delay would be liable to be entertained. Against these observations the petitioners as also respondents filed revision which were dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 2nd January, 2006. It is against the said order that the present petition has been filed. The submission advanced on the behalf of the petitioner is that as the notification under Section 52(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has already been published long back, no appeal would be maintainable and as such the liberty given by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was contrary to law. It is further submitted that even assuming that the appeal could be filed or maintained by the respondents, the Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 31.5.2005 apparently condoned the delay in filing the appeal which could not have been entertained until and unless the appeal along with delay condonation application with plausible explanation was filed. On these grounds it has been prayed that the observations made by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in the order dated 31.5.2005 to the aforesaid effect be quashed.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appeal would not be barred because of notification under sections 52(1) of the Act having been published. It has further been submitted that the Settlement Officer Consolidation has not condoned any delay but has only observed that it was liable to be considered in the interest of justice. In view of the above, it has been submitted that petition having been filed against observation which did not confer any rights would not be maintainable. It is liable to be dismissed. It has been submitted by Sri Kushwaha that the appeals have already been filed and are pending before the Settlement Officer Consolidation.;