- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record.
(2.) 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 order dated 27-4-1988 passed by the Consolidation Officer dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and also the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9-A and the order dated 9-9-1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed. It appears that the consolidation operations stated in the village in the year 1980. C. H. Form Nos. 5 and 23 were distributed to the tenure holders and other proceedings were also taken. Even the possessions over the land in dispute allotted to the various tenure-holders were delivered. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 9-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, in the year 1988 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stating that it was on receipt of C. H. Form No. 23 that he came to know about the consolidation proceedings in the village in the year 1988 and thereafter, he filed an objection. The objection filed by the petitioner was opposed by the contesting respondents but they did not file any counter affidavit as, according to them, no case for condonation of delay was at all made out from the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Consolidation Officer disbelieving the version given by the petitioner for condonation of delay, dismissed the application by his judgment and order dated 27-4- 1988. Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 10-1-1990. The said order was passed ex-parte and behind the back of the contesting respondents. They, therefore, filed a restoration/recall application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The said application was allowed. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation recalling the order became final as the validity of the same was not challenged. Thereafter the parties were heard. The Deputy Director of Consolidation affirmed the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and dismissed the revision by his judgment and order dated 9-9-1992. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that in reply to the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, filed by the petitioner, no counter affidavit was filed. The authorities below, therefore, have acted illegally in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay. He had also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Sukhdeo and othersv. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others,reported in 1993 Revenue Decisions 1, in support of his submission. Although today, no body has appeared for the respondents, but the counter affidavit filed by Bhagwan Singh, is on the record. I have perused the same. In the said affidavit the allegations made in the writ petition have been denied, it has also been stated that since the petitioner himself has failed to explain the delay in accordance with law, it was not necessary to file counter affidavit inasmuch as from the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the delay in filing the objection was not explained and no case for condonation of delay was at all made out. It was further stated that from the material on the record, it was proved that the petitioner had full knowledge about the initiation of consolidation proceedings in the village from very beginning but he slept over his rights, therefore, the authorities below were right in dismissing the application for condonation of delay as well as the objection filed by the petitioner.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the facts stated in the counter affidavit and also perused the record. It is well-settled in law that in the matter of condonation of delay, liberal approach should be adopted by the Courts. In the case of Sukhdeo (supra), the authorities below held that every days delay was not explained, therefore, the delay was not liable to be condoned. The Court, therefore, has taken the view that it was not necessary to take over its delay. In the present case the authorities below did not take any right attitude in the case. They have examined the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and thereafter held that the delay was not explained as required under the law. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has noted that the affidavit filed in support of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was verified on 30-8-1988 while in the said affidavit the date of knowledge of the Consolidation proceedings was mentioned as 31-8-1988, which was apparently wrong. Further, it was not disclosed as to how the petitioner came to know about the invitation of the consolidation proceedings. Therefore, on such an affidavit no reliance could be placed.;