K.N.Goyal, J. - (1.) THESE Writ Petitions have been filed by the State of U. P. through Forest Department. They are directed against the order of the consolidation authorities contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 9 to each of the writ petitions.
(2.) CERTAIN land was entered in the basic year Khatauni, at the start of the Consolidation operations, in the names of respondent no. 1 in each of these petitions. The Forest Department filed objections under section 9 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. These objections were to the effect that the land in question had already been notified as reserve forest under section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended in its application to this State and, as such, the opposite parties had no subsisting right in that land. These objections were dismissed in default of parties on 28-11-1975 and the basic year entries were accordingly left undisturbed by the Consolidation Officer. It is said on behalf of the State that the Forest Department officials were subsequently told by the officials of the Consolidation Department that the original objections filed by Forest Department were not available on record. As such, they filed fresh objections on 8-5-1976 in ignorance of the fact that the earlier objections had actually been dismissed in default on 28-11-1975. The new objections were rejected on 20-7-1977 on the ground that they were not maintainable because the original objections, filed by the Forest Department, had already been dismissed on 28-11-1975. Thereafter, restoration applications were filed on 18-8-1977. These were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 26-12-1977. Against this dismissal time-barred appeals were filed on 17-2-1978. The limitation for these appeals had expired 18 days earlier. Applications under section 5 Limitation Act were also made for condonation of delay in the filing of the appeals. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) held that the appeals were not maintainable and that the orders of the Consolidation Officer, rejecting the restoration applications on 18-8-1977, could only be challenged in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Thereafter, the State took the matter in revision to the Deputy Director of Consolidation who agreed with the Settlement Officer (Consolidation)'s view that no appeals were maintainable against the order dated 18-8-1977. Aggrieved by these orders of the Consolidation authorities the State has filed these writ petitions. Only Writ Petition No. 1904 of 1982 has been contested on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 while in the other writ petitions the opposite parties have not put in appearance inspite of sufficient service and the writ petitions have been heard ex-parte against them.
(3.) SRI Umesh Chandra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1 in writ petition no. 1904 of 1982, has urged several preliminary objections to the maintainability of this writ petition. The first objection is on the ground of laches. The writ petition has been filed about four weeks later than the usual period of 90 days. As no period of limitation has been prescribed for writ petitions and the period of 90 days is adhered to only as a matter of court practice, without any rigidity, learned counsel for opposite party has not pressed this objection. Another preliminary objection is that while before the consolidation officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), apart from opposite party no. 1 Smt. Vimla Sambharwal, some other co-sharers had also been impleaded those co-sharers had not been impleaded by the State in its revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation or in the writ petition before this Court. As such, it has been contended that the decision has become final against the other co-sharers. Accordingly, the argument runs, the entertainment of this writ petition against Smt. Vimla Sambharwal alone may result in inconsistent decisions in a matter in which the interest of Smt. Vimla Sambharwal and her co-sharers is joint. Learned Standing Counsel, Sri H. N. Telhari, has, on the other hand, contended that so far as the writ petition is concerned, the other co-sharers have been rightly not impleaded because they were not parties before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, and that when the matter goes back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it would be open to him to give notice to the other co-sharers in case any adverse order is proposed to be passed by him against them. He has further contended that section 11-C of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act provides that in the course of hearing of an objection, appeal or revision, the authorities may direct that any land which vests in the State Government or the Gaon Sabha or any other local body or authority may be recorded in its name even though no objection, appeal or revision has been filed by such Government, Gaon Sabha, body or authority. Moreover, under section 48 of the Act it is open to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to exercise suo motu powers of revision and, as such, even though no revision may have been filed against the order dated 28-11-75 at all or in respect of the order of SOC against other co-sharers, the Deputy Director of Consolidation could act on his own, of course after allowing those other parties who had not been impleaded an opportunity of being heard. As regards section 11-C, Sri Umesh Chandra has contended that this section is not applicable in a case where the State Government or the Gaon Sabha or other local body or authority has preferred an objection, but is applicable only to a case where they have not preferred an objection, appeal or revision. This, in my opinion, is an unduly restrictive interpretation of section 11-C. The words of section 11-C are that the authorities may make the direction as mentioned in that section "even though no objection etc. had been filed by such government etc." The words "even though" cannot be interpreted to mean "only if" or "only in case". The words imply that irrespective of whether or not any objection, appeal or revision has been filed by the Government etc., it is open to the consolidation authorities to make a direction in favour of the Government or other authority. A Full Bench of this Court has held in Amir Husain v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad, 1977 AWC 1 that 'the various provisions of the Act would show that a duty has been cast on the Consolidation authorities to maintain correct record of persons entitled to the land". (Vide para 12 of the Report). Accordingly, even though it is open to the Government or other Authority to file objections under section 9 (2) of the Act, the Consolidation authorities ought to make an order in favour of Government etc. where it is so warranted even though no objection has been filed under section 9 (2) of the Act. It was also observed in para 14 of the Report that "it is the duty of a court of law to adopt an interpretation of a provision of an Act which is just and reasonable and should avoid making a mechanical interpretation of the words as far as the context permits.";