- (1.) R. R. Yadav, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE present writ petition is directed against the order dated 17-10-1985, passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in conciliation proceedings, against the order dated 20-1-2001 passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation in appeal dismissing it on the ground of limitation and the order dated 6-8-2001, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, affirming the order passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation and also touching the merits of the case. From perusal of the orders impugned, it appears that Assistant Consolidation, Officer has passed an order on 17-10-1985 on the basis of alleged conciliation wherein it is alleged that the petitioners have signed it. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are illiterate persons. They are living in remote village and are not conversant with legal complications. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and also supported from the material available on record that after taking extract of Khatauni it transpired that on the basis of conciliation, the area of plot No. 562 was reduced from 1 bigha 13 biswa to 18 biswa only, causing loss of 15 biswa land to the petitioners. It is averred by the petitioners in the present writ petition that neither they have signed any conciliation proceeding before the Assistant Consolidation Officer nor they have any knowledge about such conciliation reducing 15 biswa area of their plot No. 562 from 1 bigha 13 biswa to 18 biswa. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners on the ground of limitation, holding that the appeal has been filed after inordinate delay of 13 years. When the matter came up before Deputy Director of Consolidation, he affirmed the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, touching the merits of the case.
(3.) IT is amazing to note that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, without directing demarcation about the actual area of plot No. 562 on the spot, have passed orders that during consolidation operation, the area of the aforesaid plot can neither be increased nor can be deeased. The aforesaid observation made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be said to be accurate without directing demarcation of the aforesaid plot on the spot in view of the provisions contained in Chakbandi Manual. It is settled law that condonation of delay is a condition precedent to enter into the merits of the case. In the present case, although delay has not been condoned, yet the Deputy Director of Consolidation has entered into the merits of the case. It is held that unless delay is condoned, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has no jurisdiction to embark upon the merits of the case. As a matter of fact, a Court or Tribunal gets jurisdiction to decide a lis between the parties on merits only after condoning the delay.;