S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Chandra Shekhar learned brief holder of Sri G.N. Verma learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Mishra learned Counsel for the contesting respondent.
(2.) The petitioner filed objections under section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act before Consolidation Officer, which were dismissed in default on 15.1.1968. The petitioner on the same date filed restoration application, which was misplaced. Thereafter on 26.4.1968 petitioner filed application for tracing the restoration application. According to para 9 of the writ petition report was submitted on 21.6.1968 that the restoration application was available with Ahalmad. Thereafter on 3.6.1968 the matter was taken up but the file containing restoration application was again not traceable. On 3.6.1968 restoration application, which had not even been traced, was dismissed. Order was passed on the application of the petitioner for tracing the file containing the restoration application. Against the said order appeal was filed being appeal No. 5801, Ram Adhar and others v. Ram Jag and others. There was some delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation on 12.3. J9n9, against which revision was filed, which was numbered as Revision No. 645/465/8006. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Camp Gyanpur on 5.2.1975 dismissed the revision hence this writ petition.
(3.) In my opinion all the three Courts have taken extremely technical view regarding restoration and delay condonation. Such a strict approach in such matter is not desirable. The delay in filing appeal was of only few days. Consolidation Officer passed order of the dismissal of the restoration application on the application, which was filed for tracing the record including restoration application. It was the fault of the Consolidation Officer, which should have been corrected by SOC and DDC when the matter was brought to their notice. The SOC instead of correcting the order, dismissed the appeal as barred by time and DDC approved the same.;