Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) In the basic year consolidation record names of Basudeo (petitioner), Suraj Nath Rai father of respondent No. 2 and one Ram Swaroop were recorded. During consolidation proceedings a conciliation took place and the ACO by order dated 23.7.1970 gave half share to the petitioner and half share to Suraj Nath Rai and some other persons. Suraj Nath Rai died some time in the year 1977. Thereafter his son respondent No. 2 filed an appeal on 21.7.1981 against the order of ACO dated 23.7.1970. This appeal was dismissed as barred by time on 20.12.1982. Respondent No. 2 filed a revision which was allowed on 13.9.1983, hence the present writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri V.D. Ojha, Counsel for petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Counsel for respondent No. 2. It is not disputed that order of ACO was passed on 23.7.1970, it is also not disputed that it was signed by father of respondent No. 2, it is further not disputed that he was alive for seven years and he did not take any proceeding for cancellation of this conciliation. It is after 11 years of the initial order and 4 years after the death of Suraj Nath Rai, his son respondent No. 2 filed the appeal which was dismissed. The Revision was allowed on the ground that some other persons have not signed the compromise. He has not reversed the finding that appeal was barred by time. Neither the father of respondent No. 2 nor respondent No. 2 himself challenged the signature. Eleven years had passed when respondent No. 2 agitated the matter. The delay in filing the appeal was not condoned. In view of this there was no justification for DDC to allow the revision on 15.9.1983. It is illegal and is quashed. The order of SOC dismissing the appeal as barred by time is upheld. With theses observations the writ petition is allowed. Petition Allowed.;