- (1.) HEARD Sri K.N. Shukla, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Govind Krishna, counsel for the contesting respondent no.3.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 21.02.2011 by which delay in filing the appeal has been condoned and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13.9.2013, dismissing the revision against the aforesaid order. Harishchand filed an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 7.1.2000 along with a delay condontion application on 31.12.2008. In the memorandum of appeal, delay condonton application and affidavit attached to it, Harishchand has stated that his house and construction was existed on the land in dispute since before the date of vesting. No one filed any objection within the time under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") claiming any right over it. However, the petitioner filed objection on 2.7.1999 in which a collusive compromise was filed and the case was decided on the basis of the said compromise by the order dated 07.01.2000. According to Harishchand Phoolmati Devi and others parties to the compromise have no interest in the land in dispute and they have no right to enter into compromise.
(3.) THE petitioner filed his objection in delay condonation application and also raised an objection regarding maintainability of appeal. It has been stated by the petitioner that the name of Harishchand was not recorded over the land in dispute and he has not filed any objection claiming his right under Section 9 of the Act. There is prima facie no evidence to prove the possession of Harishchand over the land in dispute, accordingly, he is not a person interested in the land in dispute and has no right to file appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 07.01.2000 and the inordinate delay of about 9 years was not liable to be condoned. The application for condonation of delay has been heard by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who by order dated 21.02.2011 held that Harishchand has claimed his possession over the land in dispute and has also stated that he has been litigating in respect of his right over it before the civil court. According to the allegation, he further has found that Harishchand was not the party in the objection as such the limitation for filing appeal would start running from the date of knowledge of the order and the cause being sufficient, condoned the delay in filing the appeal and held the appeal as maintainable on behalf of Harishchand and fixed a date for hearing the appeal on merit.;