SANJAY MISRA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri H.S.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as also Sri A.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4:
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.1.1977 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Gorakhpur and order dated 22.8.1977 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur, whereby the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act filed along with the objection under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') has been rejected by both the authorities. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was living out of the village and he came to know about the order passed by the Consolidation Authorities on 29.3.1976 when he inspected the records on hearing rumours and filed the application for condonation of delay along with objection on the very next date i.e. 30.3.1976. According to him, under the impugned orders, both the Courts have presumed that the petitioner had knowledge about passing of the order by the Consolidation Authorities on 31.10.1975, inasmuch as, in paragraph 7 of the objection, it has been stated that when the petitioner asked for his share from the respondents, they refused to give the same. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that it is a presumption made by the Consolidation Authorities about the knowledge of the order passed by the Consolidation Court. The second submission is that under the impugned order the condonation of delay application has been rejected for the reason that day-to-day explanation has not been given by the petitioner to condone the delay. He states that when the petitioner came to know about passing of the order by the Consolidation Authorities on 29.3.1976, he has made an application on the very next date i.e. 30.3.1976 as such, he has explained the delay of one day.
(3.) SRI A.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent has contested this writ petition by submitting that the impugned order does not requires interference because the petitioner has not given day-to-day explanation for condoning the delay, inasmuch as the notification was issued on 21.6.1971 and objections were filed on 30.3.1976 by the petitioner, which was clearly beyond time and no explanation for the delay of nearly 5 years has been given by the petitioner. Having considered the submission of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record, it appears that the Consolidation Authorities have found that the petitioner came to know about the proceedings on 31.10.1975 when he visited the village. He has filed an objection under section 9 of the Act only on 30.3.1976. The averment made by the petitioner in his objection was that on 29.3.1976 for the first time on an inspection of the record, the petitioner learnt that the respondent has got his name recorded in the consolidation records and since the petitioner is the heir and legal representative of deceased Ganpat, he was entitled to maintain his objection under section 9 of the Act. The petitioner has averred the date of knowledge about passing of the order as on 29.3.1976 and has filed the application on 30.3.1976. As such, the presumption raised in the impugned orders that he came into knowledge on 31.10.1975 does not appear to be very convincing.;