- (1.) HEARD Sri VD Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared for the contesting respondents. This writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and is directed against an order passed by the by the Dy. Director of Consolidation.
(2.) THE facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner filed an objection under section 20 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act . This objection was belated and was accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 16.1.1982 allowed the application for condonation of delay. This order was challenged by the contesting respondents by means of a revision.
(3.) THE DDC by his order dated 9.12.1982 allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer condoning the delay in filing the objection. Consequent to the order allowing the revision, the petitioner filed an aplication stating therein that since the revision had been allowed and the order condoning the delay has been set aqside it was incumbent upon the DDC to have remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the objection on merits. This so -called application for clarification was dismissed by the order dated 21.6.1983, hence this writ petition. In so far as the order dated 21.6.1983 is concerned, the same is fully justified. The objection filed by the petitioner was belated. This objection could have been entertained only once the delay was condoned and the defect in filing the revision was removed. Since the DDC set aside the order condoning the delay in filing the objection, the effect of it was that the objection itself being defective stood rejected and, therefore, the clarification that was sought for was wholly misconceived and the clarification application has been rightly rejected by the DDC.;