R.H.ZAIDI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. 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 certiorari quashing the orders dated 22 -7 -1980 and 4 -8 -1979 passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
(2.) THE relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that in the basic year, the name of the petitioner was recorded on the land in dispute. Objection was filed by the contesting respondent Nos. 4 to 9 claiming that they were entitled to the land in dispute, as the petitioner was not the daughter of Jhingur but she was the daughter of Mohan. The petitioner contested the objection filed by respondents and claimed that she was the daughter of Jhingur and was entitled to the land in dispute. It was also asserted that the basic year entry was correct. Parties, produced evidence in support of their cases, oral and documentary. The Consolidation Officer after going through the material on the record, rejected the objection filed by the contesting respondents and maintained the basic year entry by his judgment and order dated 3 -4 -1976. Challenging the validity of the said order a highly belated appeal was filed before the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner filed objection to the said application. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation without applying his mind to the question of limitation, decided the case on merits and allowed the appeal by his judgment and order dated 4 -8 -1979. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 22 -7 -1980, hence the present petition. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the appeal filed before the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation was highly belated. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation before proceeding to decide the case on merits, should have decided the application for condonation of delay in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, which applies to the proceedings before the Consolidation authorities. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation having failed to apply his mind to the question of limitation, passed the judgment and order, which is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. According to him, similar mistake was committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in upholding the order passed by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation by dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the order passed by the authorities below were quite legal. It was urged that in the counter - affidavit it was stated the delay was explained in accordance with the law, therefore, the writ petition was according to him, liable to be dismissed.;