- (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The dis pute between the parties relates to plot No. 227, area 4.1 acres.
(2.) THE Gaon Sabha In its objec tion claimed the plots as its own on the ground that the said plot was the land of public utility while the contesting res pondents claimed sirdari rights on the basis of adverse possession. The Consolidation Officer dis missed the objection by his order dated 31st March. 1969, and directed the entry in the basic year to continue. The Gaon Sabha and some others filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer. (Consoli dation) on 23rd April. 1969. A copy of the order of the Consolidation Officer was not filed along with the memo of ap peal, although an application for obtain ing the certified copy of the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 31st March, 1969. had been made on 5th April, 1969, and the same was obtained on 8th April, 1969. The certified copy of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer was. however, filed at the time of hear ing of the appeal. No application for condonation of delay was filed on be-half of the appellants. The Settlement Officer, (Consolidation), however, allow ed the appeal by his order dated 8th August. 1969. Payag, respondent No. 9, and others filed a revision before the Dy. Director of Consolidation which was allowed by the Dy. Director of Consolida tion by his order dated 3-1-1970. The Dy. Director of Consolidation took the view that the appeal filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and others was barred by limitation and no application for con donation of delay having been filed be fore the Settlement Officer. (Consolida tion) the appeal could not have been entertained and should have been dis missed on the ground of limitation alone and in this view of the matter, he found the order of the Settlement Officer (Con solidation) as with (without?) jurisdiction. He further held that even if it be assum ed that the Settlement Officer (Consolida tion) had impliedly condoned the delay, although there was no application for the condonation of the delay and no specific order to that effect, he found no justifica tion for condonation of delay. He, ac cordingly, set aside the order of the settle ment Officer (Consolidation) and restored the order of the Consolidation Officer. There were certain other pleas taken by the revisionists before the Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation, but the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not think it necessary to decide those points as he allowed the revision on the question of limitation alone. The Gaon Sabha feeling aggrieved has now filed the present peti tion to challenge the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(3.) THE sole question for con sideration in this case is whether the ap peal was barred by limitation and. if so. whether there was any justification for the condonation of delay.;