RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA),J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Hemant Kumar for the petitioners.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 29.12.2010, allowing the appeal filed by Smt. Prabhawati Devi (respondent -4) against the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 20.12.1997, condoning the delay and remanding the matter to Consolidation Officer for deciding the dispute between the parties, after giving opportunity of evidence and hearing them and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.2.2014, dismissing the revision from the aforesaid order. The dispute between the parties is in respect of inheritance of the properties of Chhote Lal. During consolidation, the petitioners filed an application under Section 12 of the Act, for mutating their names as heirs of Chhote Lal, claiming themselves to be brother's sons of Chhote Lal. It is alleged that before Assistant Consolidation Officer, there was no dispute regarding the heir ship, as such, Assistant Consolidation Officer by order dated 20.12.1997, directed for recording the names of the petitioners over the land in dispute. Thereafter, Smt. Prabhawati Devi (respondent -4) filed an appeal along with a delay condonation application on 13.09.2002 against the aforesaid order. Settlement Officer Consolidation, by his order dated 17.12.2003 condoned the delay in filing the appeal and and allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer. Two revisions were filed by the petitioners against the aforesaid order, which were consolidated and allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 29.8.2008 and the matter was again remanded to the Appellate Court, holding that no reason has been given by the Settlement Officer Consolidation for condoning the delay. After remand, the appeal was again allowed by Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 29.12.2010. It has been found by the Appellate Court that Assistant Consolidation Officer has not followed the procedure under Rule 25 -A and passed the order dated 20.12.1997. Since Smt. Prabhawati Devi was not given any notice, as such, there was sufficient ground for condoning the delay. On this finding, the appeal was allowed and the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 20.12.1997 was set aside and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for trial on merit and decide afresh, after giving opportunity of evidence and hearing the parties. The revision filed by the petitioners against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by the order dated 28.02.2014. Hence, the writ petition has been filed.
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioners submits that Smt. Prabhawati Devi is not the sister of Chhote Lal. In case Smt. Prabhawati Devi was the real sister of Chhote Lal, then there would have been no reason for committing inordinate delay or not applying for substitution after the death of Chhote Lal within reasonable time. The issue relating to the question as to whether Smt. Prabhawati Devi is the sister of Chhote Lal or not, cannot be decided by the consolidation authorities. A declaration in this respect can only be granted by the Civil Court. In such circumstances, the inordinate delay in filing the appeal was not liable to be condoned. He further submits that since the application filed by Smt. Prabhawati Devi was not maintainable, as till today, there is no declaration from any competent court that she is the sister of Chhote Lal, as such her appeal was not liable to be allowed.;