Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Namvar Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 4.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the present case are that the petitioner filed an objection under section 9(a)(2) of the Act, on the ground that he has been declared Sirdar of the plot in dispute in proceedings under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, by the Revenue Court as such his name may be mutated in the record. The said objection of the petitioner was not contested by the Gaon Sabha. The then Pradhan, Sri Jagroop, admitted the possession of the petitioner over the plot in dispute before the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 31.7.1975 allowed the objection and directed the name of the petitioner to be recorded over the plot in dispute. During chak carvation proceedings the plot in dispute was allotted in the chak of the petitioner. Sri Jagroop, the then Pradhan of the village filed an appeal under section 21 of the Act, challenging the allotment of the plot in dispute in the chak of the petitioner. The appeal was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 9.9.1976. Subsequently, after about two years of the order of Consolidation Officer, Sri Jagroop, the then Pradhan filed an objection under section 9 of the Act along with an application under section 5 of Limitation Act. He also filed a time barred appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 31.7.1975. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 19.3.1978 allowed the appeal without condoning the delay. In the meantime, the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 7.4.1978 condoned the delay in filing the objection under section 9 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed two revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. One revision was filed against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 19.3.1978 allowing the time barred appeal filed against the order dated 31.7.1975 of the Consolidation Officer and the other revision was filed against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 7.4.1978 condoning the delay in filing the objection. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 19.8.1978 dismissed both the revisions.
(3.) I have gone through the record of the writ petition and orders passed by Consolidation Authorities. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 31.7.1975 had allowed the objection of the petitioner on the basis of the decree of the Revenue Courts declaring him to be Sirdar of the plots in dispute. He also took into account the statement of Sri Jagroop, the then Pradhan who appeared as a witness and admitted the possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer while, condoning the delay in filing the objection under section 9 of the Act by Gaon Sabha failed to consider that the Pradhan of the village had himself appeared before Consolidation Officer in proceeding under section 9 of the Act instituted by the petitioner and as such it cannot be said that he had no knowledge about the proceedings. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation allowed the appeal filed by the Gaon Sahba against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 31.7.1975 without condoning the delay. Further, the Settlement Officer Consolidation has wrongly held that the decree passed by Revenue Court under section 229-B will not operate as res judicata, as it was based on compromise. The same view has been taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that decree under section 229-B based on compromise will not operate as res judicata but only as estoppel.;