A.P.SAHI,J - (1.) THE petitioners who were recorded in the basic year as the tenure-holders of the land in dispute have filed this writ petition questioning the correctness of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31st December 2010 as also the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 10th July, 2009 condoning the delay in filing the objections on the ground that the objection filed by the respondent no. 3 - Suryabali was heavily time barred and there being no occasion for condoning the delay, the Consolidation Officer erroneously passed the order dated 10th July, 2009 and accordingly the revisional order also suffers from the same error, hence, they deserve to be set aside.
(2.) THE facts that have been given rise to the controversy appear to be that according to the admitted pedigree Ram Awatar had three sons, Kharpattu, Ram Jiyawan and Lurkhur. The respondent no. 3 Suryabali is the son of Ram Jiyawan. The respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are the grand sons of Kharpattu and the respondent no. 7 Smt. Murti Devi is the widow of late Kanhaiya another grand son of Kharpattu. The petitioners are purchasers of the land through sale deeds of 1968 and 1971 from the predecessors in interest of the respondent nos. 4 to 7. Their names were entered in the basic year records. The consolidation operations commenced and the notification for filing objections under Section 9 was made on 19.8.1976. The respondent no. 3 - Suryabali filed an objection on 30th January, 1986 claiming that he was entitled to his share and his name should be recorded accordingly. It is this objection which was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay. The petitioners filed an objection on 22.8.2008 contending that the objection was heavily time barred and it should be rejected.
(3.) THE respondent no. 3 relying on certain documents in relation to his identity as being the son of Ram Jiyawan including the extract of family register, voters list as also other documents, including the death certificate of Lurkhur and Ram Jiyawan, prayed for condonation of the delay. The Consolidation Officer after examining the Khatauni of 1363 to 1365 fasli corresponding year 1970-71 found that the name of Kharpattu, Ram Jiyawan and Lurkhur had been entered against Khata No. 183. The petitioners had contested it on the basis of Khatauni of 1360 fasli which indicates their name against Khata No. 282. They also set up a claim that the property was not ancestral and had not been acquired by Ram Awatar.;