S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26th August, 1992 andol the Consolidation Officer dated 16.1.1990 (Annexnres 7 and 6 respectively). There appears to be no dispute about the fact that one Harbansh was recorded tenure holder. Petitioner claims to be the daughter of the deceased Harbansh from the first wife viz Anara. On the death of Harbansh name of Smt. Chandrakali who happened to be the widow came in the papers. It appears that one set of consolidation proceedings had already intervened but it is in the second set of consolidation proceedings for which publication under section 9 of the U.P.C.H. Act has taken place in respect to the land of three villages in the year 1983 and 85 objection was filed by the petitioner on 26th October, 1987. As objection of the petitioner was delayed by about 2-4 years an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing objection was also filed. It appears that to strengthen her claim some pleadings and evidence has also come, but the Consolidation Officer after making certain observation about factual aspect, ultimately in the operative part has rejected the objection of the petitioner solely on the ground that petitioner has not been able to explain the delay in filing the objection hence she is not entitled for condonation in the matter. The land in dispute situates in three villages hence three revisions were filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and all were decided by a common judgment and were dismissed. It is thus, orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Consolidation Officer referred above are challenged before this Court.
(2.) Submission of the learned counsel is that admittedly petitioner was married and she was living away from the village where the land in dispute situates and thus it is only when she came to know about living of Chandrakali with Nanak Singh after their re-marriage, only then she after making detailed enquiry filed objection laying her claim in respect of the land in dispute. It is argued that on the fact of the present case petitioner had no occasion to file any objection either in the earlier consolidation proceedings or at any prior stage, as it is only on account of remarriage of Smt. Chandrakali Or on her death petitioner can lay her claim in the land in dispute. It is argued that on the fact, the delay was liable to be condoned by Consolidation Officer by giving benefit of limitation. It is argued that as after finality of the consolidation proceedings claim of the petitioner will stood barred under section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act on the fact of the present case discretion was liable to be exercised in favour of the petitioner and she was entitled to get opportunity of getting her rights adjudicated on the merits.
(3.) In response to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner happens to be negligent about her rights and as she has not taken any steps at earlier point of time and in the present consolidation proceeding she has filed objection after several years for which no satisfactory explanation has been given and thus dismissal of her objection by the Consolidation Officer on the ground of delay and its confirmation by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be said to be illegal in any manner warranting interference by this Court.;