Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Lal Chand Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3.
(2.) The dispute relates to plot Nos. 133, 131, 212 and 212 situate in village Lakhimpur district Jaunpur which were recorded in the name of the petitioner in the basic year. The facts in brief are that a time barred objection under section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed by respondent No. 3 claiming that the property in dispute was transferred in his favour by means of a sale deed by the petitioner on 27.8.1965 and as such, he is entitled for mutation of his name in revenue records. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17.9.1971 allowed the objection only in respect of part of the property. The consolidation operations.came to an end and a notification under section 52 of the Act was published on 15.8.1973. After the publication of the said notification, respondent No. 3 filed a highly belated appeal on 13.3.1975. There was a compromise between the parties before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the appeal was decided on the basis of the compromise vide order dated 28.5.1976. Respondent No. 3 challenged the appellate order by filing a revision on 24.1.1978 which was again barred by time. The revision was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 2.5.1979 and the case was remanded back to the Settlement Officer Consolidation for decision on merit.
(3.) I have perused the record of the writ petition and the orders passed by the Consolidation authorities.;