- (1.) THE points raised in this petition and in the other connected peti tions are the same. They are being dis posed of by a common judgment.
(2.) THE dispute relates to a land situate in village Dhimarpur. Tehsil Powayan, District Shahjahanpur. It ap pears that the land was recorded some time back in the name of Satya Jeet Singh and Padamjeet Singh. Proceed ings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceil ing of Land Holdings Act took place and the land was declared as surplus. There after the petitioner in the present peti tion filed objections under Section 14 of the Act. claiming rights in the surplus land. These petitions were dismissed by the prescribed authority as also by the appellate authority. A writ petition filed against that decision was also dismissed. The matter is now pending in this Court by way of a petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court In the year 1969, the village was brought under consolidation operations. The petitioners have averred that in the records prepared by the Consolida tion authorities, they were shown as tenure- holders of the disputed land and notices in C. H. Form 5 were also issued showing them as tenure- holders. No objections were filed within the time prescribed under Section 9 (2) of the Act Subsequently, an objection was filed on 10-2-1970. by the Additional Collector Shahjahanpur, stating therein that the land had been declared as gurplus_ in pro ceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act and had vested in the State of U. P. and that the objections could not be filed within the (time prescribed under S. 9 (2) of the Act and as the fact that the names of the erstwhile tenure-holders continued to be recorded in the revenue papers, came to the knowledge of the authorities on 8-2-1970 the delay in filing the objections be condoned. This application was not sup ported by an affidavit. Replies were filed to this by the petitioners supported by an affidavit, wherein, it was alleged inter alia that the decision in the U. P. Imposi tion of the Ceiling of Land Holdings Act had not become final and the matter is pending in the High. Court and further (that the papers relating to the consolida tion cases had been examined as far back as 25-10-1969 as also on 8-2-1970. which went to show that the State had know ledge of these proceedings much earlier. lit was also asserted that a letter was sent in the first week of January 1970 by the Consolidation Officer to the Ceiling Officer giving information of the consoli dation proceedings and inviting them to objections against the proposed entries. 1A true copy of the alleged letter has been filed as Annexure 12 to the peti tion. The State filed a counter-affida vit to the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners in Section 5 proceedings. In paragraph 9 of this affidavit, it was as serted that although the land in dispute had been declared as surplus land by the prescribed authority of Sitapur the en tries in the record had not been correct ed in pursuance of these orders and the mistake came to the knowledge of the State when the Additional Collector (Ex ecutive) made investigation for the first time on 8-2-1970. a stand was also taken up that the period of limitation should count from the date of knowledge and In any event the delay should be con doned. The Consolidation Officer found that although objections had been filed by the State on behalf of the Gaon Samaj in some case on 25-10-1969. yet it could not be said that the State had knowledge of the entries in the present case before 8-2-1970. Taking into account the decision under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act. he took the view that in case the delay in filing the objections was not condoned, it would amount to setting at naught the judgment given by these authorities. He also expressed the suspicion that the delay in correcting the revenue records, subsequent to the deci sion of ceiling authorities, might have been due to machinations of the tenure-holders concerned and if the State Gov ernment thought fit the matter may be enquired into and proper action taken against the persons concerned. The vari ous petitioners filed as many as seven revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. An application was also moved before the Deputy Director of Consolidation for summoning the Ceiling Clerk along with letter No. 165/C. O. Banda dated 7- 1-1970 which was alleged to have been received on 17-1-1970 by the District Magistrate at serial No. 176 of the Dak Bahi by the Ceiling Clerk Hardwari Lal The Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected this application by observing: "Keep on file. In my opinion, no Investigation is needed, nor is it neces sary to send for papers on admissible points since the applicant is not ex pected to know the existence of such letters." On merits, he held that the stake of the State Government in the case was consi derable and it was immaterial that the objections had been filed on information sent by the Consolidation Officer and that the delay being only of three months no inconvenience could be caused to the applicants in case the application was allowed. He. accordingly, upheld the order of the Consolidation Officer.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners has contended that the Consolidation Officer was biased against the petitioners, inas much as he had showed undue interest in the case of the State by sending a letter asking it to file objections and as such the decision given by him was vitiated. It has also been urged that none of the two officers have considered the relevant factors, which were neces sary for deciding as to whether sufficient cause had been shown for condonation of delay.;