K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 13th January, 1975 whereby the case has been remanded to the Demarcation Officer with the direction that he should submit his report or comments to the Demarcation Commissioner on the objection and also on the application under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for his orders. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, it appears that opposite-party no. 3 in the present writ petition claimed the disputed land as his tenancy land but the same has been indicated as non-agricultural area under the provision of U. P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The opposite party no. 3 had filed an application alongwith a prayer for condonation of delay in preferring the application under section 4, sub-clause (3) of the U. P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Demarcation Officer through his order dated 22nd June, 1970, contained in Annexure T attached with the writ petition, dismissed the objection on the ground of limitation. Against that order, the contesting opposite-party had approached the opposite party no. 1, which remanded the case to the Demarcation Officer for submitting his report and comments to the Demarcation Commissioner on the objection as well as on the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that as the objection filed by the contesting opposite party no. 3, Sheo Nath, was beyond time the Demarcation Officer had full jurisdiction to dismiss the application for condonation of delay and in that circumstance the Board of Revenue has patently erred in remanding the case to the Demarcation Officer with the direction mentioned in its order. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has tried to support the impugned judgment of the Board of Revenue,
(3.) I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it is proper to quote section 31 of the Rules which reads as under :- Section 4 (3). Section 86 (2) (in)- " Any person or local authority affected may, within three months of the publication of the notice in the Gazette, file an objection on the proposals before the Demarcation Officer, stating clearly and specifically the number of the plots for which he prefers the objection and the grounds of objection and attaching to it a certified extract of Khasra as corrected under part 'A' or revised under Part 'B' as the case may be. The Demarcation Officer shall then examine the objections and shall, within one month of their filing, submit his report of comments on the objection to Commissioner." The learned counsel for the petitioner has vigorously contended that in view of Rule 31 the Demarcation Officer had power to examine the validity of objection and in that view he had full power not to condone the delay in preferring the objection and thereby he should dismiss the objection.;