Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sankatha Ral, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Singh learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4.
(2.) By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 29.4.2003, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and the order dated 21.3.2003, passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh.
(3.) Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are : "The respondent No. 4 filed a time barred appeal under Section II (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act against the order dated 5.4.1986, passed by the Consolidation Officer under Section 9A (2) of the said Act. Along with appeal affidavit of the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha was also filed. Benefit under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also claimed and it was prayed that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. In appeal it was stated that plot Nos. 521 area 245 Karis was recorded as pond in basic year records and was also recorded as pond in Khatauni of 1307 F. It was specifically pleaded in paragraph 2 of the appeal that neither any case was registered as Case No. 934 nor it was ever decided by the Court and the objection is ante-dated and the order shown to have been passed, was not passed by the Presiding Officer nor it containing the signatures of the Presiding Officer. It was further stated that the aforesaid order was ex-parte. In paragraph 6 it was stated that entire proceedings were antedated and fictitious. In paragraph 7 of the appeal it was stated that the order dated 5.4.1986 was shown to have been incorporated in the records after nine years. It was stated that after coming to know about the above facts the appellant informed the said facts to the District Government advocate and an application was also filed before the Collector under Section 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act but the Collector took the view that with regard to legality and validity of the order dated 5.4.1986 proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act are not maintainable. It was stated that the order has been passed for filing the appeal by the Incharge Gaon Sabha/Collector. These facts were verified on affidavit on basis of which benefit under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, was claimed. An objection was filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation in which it was stated that the appeal is barred by 16 years and hence no case has been made out for grant of benefit under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was further stated that the proceedings under Section 33/39 were held in the Court of Collector in which the Pradhan herself appeared on 29.6.2002, hence it cannot be stated that she had no knowledge. The Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation by order dated 21.3.2003, gave the benefit under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the appeal and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation fixed the appeal for hearing. Against the said order dated 21.3.2003 the petitioner filed a revision under Section 48 of the said Act which revision has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 29.4.2003. The Deputy Director of Consolidation took the view that the appellate court has only granted benefit under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which does not affect the right of the petitioner. He further observed that on question of limitation of Courts have to adopt liberal view. The Deputy Director of Consolidation with the aforesaid observations refused to interfere with the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Against these two orders the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.";