U.C.Srivastava, J. - (1.) The orders passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation refusing to condone the delay are subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. It seems that the parties are the members of the same family and earlier a Dispute regarding land in dispute was decided in the year 1950 that is much before start of the consolidation operations. I he names of both the parties were entered in the basic year records. The dispute in respect of khata nos. 121, 122 and 196 was raised before the Assistant Consolidation Officer which was referred before the Consolidation Officer. He decided the case in respect of khata no. 122 vide order dated l-7-69. Against the said order the petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, where after a revision was filed and the Assistant Director of Consolidation to decide the case in respect of all three khatas. In the meantime it appears that on 21th July, 1969 dispute in respect of khata no. 121 was also decided and the objections filed by the petitioners were dismissed. Before the decision of the case by the Assistant Director of Consolidation it seems that the parties entered into compromise in respect of khata no. 196, and the case was decided in terms of the said compromise. In his order the Consolidation Officer mentioned that the dispute regarding two khatas has already been decided. It was against these two orders that the petitioners filed two appeals. One was against the order dated 28-7-79 in respect of khata no. 121 and the other was against the order dated 12-5-71 passed by the Consolidation officer on the basis of the compromise between the parties. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed on the ground that it was highly belated and the delay was not satisfactorily explained. Thereafter the petitioners filed two revision applications which were dismissed. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties in which the orders passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Assistant Director of Consolidation have been justified. So far as khata no. 122 is concerned there is no dispute between the parties. So far as appeal against order dated 12-5-71 passed by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of reconciliation proceedings is concerned the Assistant Director of Consolidation decided the same on 9th August, 1971 viz., some three months thereafter.
(2.) Merely because certain observations were made by the Assistant Director of Consolidation in the judgment to the effect that the Consolidation Officer should have decided the case in respect of three khatas together that will not confer any extra right or change the factual position. So far as appeal or revision application pertaining to khata no. 196 is concerned the Assistant Director of Consolidation rejected the prayer for condonation of the delay as he was not satisfied from the explanation and found no justification for a long wait after compromise. An observation regarding the propriety of deciding all the three cases made by the Assistant Director of Consolidation could not be a ground for condoning the delay in filing an appeal against an order which was passed three months earlier. It is for the petitioners to apply to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to exercise his suo motu power for deciding the case on merits as the same can still be done even if the prayer for condonation of delay has been refused in respect of said kbata no. 196. The Assistant Director of Consolidation did not pass three separate orders and by one order he gave direction for deciding three cases together but what is true for khata no. 196 may not be true for khata no. 121. So far as khata no. 121 is concerned the petitioners' plea of having been misled by the directions of Assistant Director of Consolidation or being under a particular belief so far adjudication of rights of parties is concerned could have been rejected only after due consideration. The Deputy Director of Consolidation did not look into all the averments made by the petitioners in respect of khata no. 121 for condoning the delay. In view of the fact that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not addressed himself to the relevant questions this part of the order is khata no. 121 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained.
(3.) In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 20-3-78 Annexure-7 to this writ petition, is quashed so far as khata no. 121 is concerned but is dismissed so far khata no. 196 is concerned. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to restore back the revision application in respect of khata no, 121 and hear to decide the question of delay in accordance with Jaw in the light of the observations made above. If the delay is condoned it is for him to pass necessary orders and directions. There will be no order as to costs.;