R.H.ZAIDI, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorariquashing the judgment and order dated 7 -9 -1979 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia.
(2.) THE relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the village where the land in dispute is situated, came under the operation of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short the Act, in year 1965 -66. In the basic year, name of the petitioner was recorded over the land in dispute in the revenue papers. Respondent No. 2, Smt. Khedani, since deceased, filed two objections claiming that she was the owner -in -possession of the said land and that the name of the petitioner was liable to be expunged from the revenue papers. The said objections were filed after inordinate delay, that too without an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay. What other pleas were taken in the said objection, are not known inasmuch as neither alongwith the writ petition nor with the counter affidavit nor with the rejoinder affidavit copies of the said objections have been filed by the parties; but it is certain that delay in filing the objection was sought to be explained, as it is evident from the material on the record. The Consolidation Officer took the view that the objections were filed beyond the time prescribed under the law, no separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was filed, therefore, there was no question of granting benefit under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was also observed that the affidavit filed in support of the objections was insufficiently stamped. The objections were, therefore, legally not maintainable. Having recorded the said findings, the objections filed by Smt. Khedani were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer by his judgments and orders dated 28 -7 1975 and 8 -8 -1975. Challenging the validity of the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer, two appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation by Smt. Khedni. The Settlement Officer Consolidation also affirmed the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeals by his judgments and order dated 1 -12 -1975. Respondent No. 2 thereafter filed two revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation challenging the validity of the orders passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which were registered as Revisions No. 55 and 167. The Deputy Director of Consolidation reversed the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and without condoning the delay, set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh after deciding the objections raised by the petitioner regarding limitation and on merits, by his judgments and orders dated 7 -9 -1979. Hence the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as he had no jurisdiction to set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and to direct them to decide the case on merits without condoning the delay in filing the objections. It was also urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to act as the Consolidation Officer or as the Settlement Officer Consolidation and to substitute his own findings for the findings recorded by the authorities below. It was also urged that without condonation of delay, he had no jurisdiction to remand the case. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent supported the validity of the order and has submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was an order of remand which was just and equitable. The effect of the said order would be that the parties shall have an opportunity to place their cases before the Consolidation Officer properly, firstly on the question of delay and if the delay is condoned, then on merits. Thus, justice will be done in the case.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.;