RAM SURAT RAM, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A.K. Mishra for the petitioner and Sri Hardev Prajapati, for the respondents.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Consolidation Officer (respondent -3) dated 20.11.1984, Settlement Officer Consolidation (respondent -2) dated 02.06.1989 and Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent -1) dated 14.09.1993, passed in title proceeding, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is alleged that Smt. Dhanraji (respondent -4) executed a registered sale deed dated 21.06.1975, by which she transferred her 1/9 share in plots 11/1 (area 0.595 hectare) and 75 (area 0.441 hectare) and 1/3 share in plots 63 (area 0.030 hectare) and 69/1 (area 0.170 hectare) of village Ibrahimpur, tappa Gujara, pargana Nizamabad, district Azamgarh to Ram Chandra (petitioner) and Birbal (respondent -5) who are real brothers. In consolidation, the petitioner and respondent -5 filed a time barred objection (registered as Case No. 1162/14904) under Section 9 -A of the Act, on 23.11.1982, for recording their names over the land in dispute, on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed. The Consolidation Officer (respondent -3), by order dated 07.03.1983 condoned the delay in filing the objection. When the case was listed for evidence, respondent -5, who was doing pairavee in the case on his own behalf and on behalf of the petitioner (as the petitioner was in service and was posted in West Bengal at that time) failed to adduce any evidence as such his evidence was closed. However, on the application of respondent -5, Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 22.08.1984, gave one more opportunity for evidence, on costs. Even then he could not adduce any evidence and the objection was dismissed in default on 20.11.1984. Respondent -5 filed an application on 24.11.1984 for recall of the order dated 20.11.1984, but subsequently he did not pursue his application.
(3.) THE petitioner alleged that respondent -5 did not inform him in respect of the proceedings taken by him, before the Consolidation Officer. In the meantime, notification under Section 52 of the Act, was made on 28.03.1987. The petitioner retired from service in the year 1987 and came to the village. He consulted the local counsel for recording his name over the land in dispute on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed. Since the consolidation operation was over, as such the counsel moved an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Tahsildar, by order dated 27.05.1987 directed for mutation of the name of the petitioner over the land in dispute. Respondent -4 filed an application for recall of the order dated 27.05.1987, in which she stated that the application of the petitioner was barred under Section 49 of the Act. It has also been stated that the petitioner and his brother filed an objection before Consolidation Officer but could not adduce any evidence and their objection was dismissed in default. Thereafter, the counsel of the petitioner made inquiries on 17.09.1987 and came to know about the order of Consolidation Officer dated 20.11.1984. Then a time barred appeal (registered as Appeal No. 1317/1511) was filed along with delay condonation application on 18.09.1987 against order dated20.11.1984.;