S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) -By means of this petition, petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 5th March, 1975 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) by which revision filed by the opposite party has been allowed and by condoning the delay in filing objection, matter has been sent to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the claim of the parties on the merits.
(2.) PARTIES counsel has been heard at some length. There appears to be no dispute about the fact that basic year record shows name of the petitioners as bhumidhar over the land in question. Objection was filed by the opposite party on 31st May, 1974, which was time-barred. It has been stated in para 4 of the objection that between the parties at an earlier stage the litigation has taken place in which it was finally held that the land in dispute is abadi of the objector but thereafter land was recorded as grove of the petitioners. It was further stated that in the consolidation Partal the map has not been correctly prepared so prayer was made that the name of the petitioner be expunged and the land be recorded as abadi. The Consolidation Officer by its judgment dated 30th June, 1975, by giving finding that no satisfactory explanation has been given in respect to the delay dismissed objection on the ground of limitation. In revision filed by the opposite party Deputy Director of Consolidation by giving finding that ground taken by the objector about lack of knowledge in respect to correct entry and position of the spot in view of the abadi/grove cannot be said to be motivated and therefore, believing the explanation given by the objector delay in filing the same was condoned and the matter was remitted back to the Consolidation Officer. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that irrespective of the objection filed by the objector being barred by time or not as by the objection prayer was made that after expunging the name of the petitioner, land be recorded as abadi it was not maintainable as consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to declare the land as abadi of the objector and thus as proceedings pursuant to the order of remand by the Deputy Director of Consolidation will be a futile exercise, impugned order is liable to be interfered by this Court. It has been further submitted that irrespective of the entry in the name of the petitioners of their bhumidhari in the consolidation proceedings it is always open for the opposite party to the file civil suit for declaration about the land to be abadi and at the same time for declaration of his right in the land and, therefore, proceedings pursuant to the order of the remand will be just multiplicity and will be nothing but sheer harassment to both the parties. In support of the aforesaid submission Sri Misra, learned advocate has placed reliance on the decision given by this Court in case of Kamla Shanker, 1979 RD 78.
(3.) IN response to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the respondents submits that by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation only delay in filing the objection has been condoned and the rival claim of the parties including that of the objector is to be examined by the Consolidation Officer and thus, it is not a case for interference by this Court. It is further submitted that as nature of land is being claimed to be abadi, consolidation authorities have every jurisdiction to decide that question and, therefore, objection filed by objector cannot be said to be not maintainable. After hearing arguments as noted above, this Court has examined the matter.;