- (1.) THROUGH this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 16.8.2012 and 24.9.2011 passed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
(2.) HEARD Sri Anand Mohan Pandey, holding brief of Sri K. Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. It appears, respondent no. 3 filed an appeal against the order dated 14.7.2008 passed by the Consolidation Officer. The appeal was also accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation, after hearing both the sides, condoned the delay and fixed 30.11.2011 for passing the order in the appeal. The petitioner herein has filed revision no. 101 (Mithlesh Kumari Vs. Ramwati). The said revision was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 16.8.2012. Sri Pandey has vehemently contended that after the order dated 14.7.2008 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the notification under section 52 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') was issued on 25.4.2009, whereas the appeal was filed on
(3.) 1.2010. Taking shelter of sub-section (2) of section 52 of the Act, he has further contended that the cognizance by the consolidation courts could only be taken with respect to the pending proceedings and no fresh proceeding could be instituted in view of sub-section (1) of section 52 of the Act. In his submissions, since in this case, no appeal was pending, before notification under section 52 of the Act, therefore, both the courts below have erred in passing the impugned orders. 4. Sri S.K. Mourya, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State contended that the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived in view of the provisions contained under section 53B of the Act, which provides for applicability of section 5 of the Limitation Act in the consolidation proceedings. In his submissions, if the statute provides right of filing appeal, along with an application for condonation of delay, in that circumstances, if the delay is condoned, the appeal would be treated well within time and in that eventuality, the provisions contained under section 52 of the Act would not be attracted as the appeal is nothing but a creation of statute and continuation of the suit proceedings. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.;