Ashok Bhushan - (1.) -Heard Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri V. K. Singh appearing for the respondent No. 2 and Sri Neeraj Tiwari appearing for the contesting respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 4 being proforma respondent, notice has not been issued to him. As agreed by both the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of.
(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 2.7.2003 passed by the Chief Revenue Officer/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad. Facts giving rise to this writ petition lie in a very narrow compass : Respondent No. 4 has been the original tenure holder of plots No. 1814/1 area 1.4.0, 1814/3 area 0.16.0 and 1814/5 area 0.3.10 apart from other plots. The respondent No. 4 was allotted chak No. 413. In plot No. 1814 Harijan Abadi was reserved. An objection was filed by Bhagwat Prasad under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which was decided by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 21.6.1979. Bhagwat Prasad filed a time barred appeal No. 395 against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 21.6.1979. It is claimed that Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha filed an application before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation that two Biswa land in plot No. 1814/1 towards east be reserved for Harijan Abadi and the earlier reservation in the western side be set aside. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation decided the appeal modifying the Harijan Abadi. Harijan Abadi which was in plot No. 1814/1 area 0.5.0 was removed and Harijan Abadi was made in plot No. 1809/3 area 0.3.0 and 1814/1 area 0.2.0. Petitioner claimed to be purchaser of plot No. 1814/1 area 0.12.19 of his Chak No. 413 by sale deed dated 10.3.1989. The name of the petitioner was also directed to be mutated on the basis of the sale deed. New Plot No. 2678 area 0.16.4 was carved out for Harijan Abadi and plot No. 2676 was carved out in the name of the petitioner in respect of land purchased by him. The village was de-notified under Section 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on 26.12.1998. Respondent No. 3 filed an application in appeal No. 395 praying that the ex parte order dated 15.3.1990 be set aside and applicant be made party. On an application filed by the respondent No. 3, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation also passed an in-terim order on 25.10.2000 directing the parties to maintain status quo. On 25.10.2000 the respondent No. 3 also filed revision No. 152 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act against the order dated 15.3.1990 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. An application un-der Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported with an affidavit for condonation of delay was also filed by the respondent No. 3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation granted interim order on 25.10.2000. Petitioner filed an objection on 29.10.2000 in the revision raising question of main-tainability of the revision as well as the locus of respondent No. 3 to file the revision. It was prayed by the petitioner that the revision be dismissed and should not be entertained. Objection was raised by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the respondent No. 3 Moti Lal is not an aggrieved person since he was not party before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, he has no right to file revision. It was further contended that the revision was filed with delay of more than ten years and the respondent No. 3 is not entitled for condonation of delay. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 2.7.2003 admitted the revision and fixed for hearing on 4.7.2003. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that the respondent No. 3 being Harijan belonging to the same village, is naturally affected person and is aggrieved party. It was further observed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that with regard to ex parte order there is no questions of revision being barred by time and raising of said question is not in accordance with law. Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has made following submissions : (1) That the respondent No. 3 had no right to file revision since he was not party before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation nor he can be said to be aggrieved in any manner against the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 15.3.1990. (2) Respondent No. 3 has no right to file revision on behalf of the Gaon Sabha who alone could have challenged the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 15.3.1990. (3) There being delay of more than ten years in filing the revision, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision for hearing without condoning the delay in filing the revision. It is submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered and decided the question of delay and has wrongly observed that the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation being ex parte, the question of delay cannot be raised.
(3.) SRI Neeraj Tiwari appearing for the contesting respondent contended that the respondent No. 3 is aggrieved person since he is affected by the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. He further contended that the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation being ex parte there is no question of revision being barred by time. The counsel for both the parties relied on various decisions in support of their respective submissions which will be referred to while considering the aforesaid submissions. The first and second submissions of the counsel for the petitioner being inter related are being considered together. The first question is as to whether the respondent No. 3 had right to file a revision against the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation or not. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sita Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1982 ALJ 76.;