- (1.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 4.7.2012 by which the application for condonation of delay of about 12 years in filing objection under Section 9A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been rejected and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 4.1.2014/21.1.2014 dismissing the revision of the petitioner filed against the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE dispute related to plot no.162/13(area 2.20 acre) and 162/15 (area Cre) of village Ramana, Pargana Dehat Amanat, district Varansi. The notification under Section 9 of the Act took place on 15.6.1996 and notification under Section 20 of the Act took place on 4.3.1999. The chaks were confirmed in June, 2000 and delivery of possession over new chaks have taken place upto year 2000. The petitioner filed an objection along with an application for delay condonation on 11.4.2008. In the objection it has been stated that the petitioner is a rustic villager and it is during the preparation of case of Haridas vs. Mohan on 9.4.2008, it came to the notice of the petitioner that the land in dispute was not recorded in his name. Thereafter he made enquiries and came to know about the fact that the land in dispute was not recorded in his name and then objection was filed on 11.4.2008. The matter has been considered by the Consolidation Officer, who found that the village was notified on 15.6.1996 under Section 9 of the Act and the petitioner has been litigating several litigations before the consolidation courts as such his allegation that he did not have knowledge about the entry could not be believed. On this finding the application for condonation of delay has been rejected by the order dated 4.7.2012 and consequently objection was dismissed as time barred. 3. The petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the entire area of 5.26 of plot no.162 was recorded in the name of the father of the petitioner in khatauni of 1360 -1362 fasli in sub - plot 13 and sub plot 15. Same area was recorded in his name in sub plots 18, 21, 22 and 23 of plot no.162. The petitioner has sold 1.10 aCre of land of the said plot and in basic consolidation record an area of 4.16 aCre was recorded in his name. He further found that plot no.162 was a very big plot and due to time to time selling by owners of the sub -divisions of it the sub divisions of this plot used to vary. However, area of the portion of which the petitioner was the owner remained intact upto basic year and the petitioner has no prima facie case. He further found that at the time of notification under Section 9 of the Act CH Form 5 is served upon a tenure holder giving details of his original holding and there is no reason to believe the submission of the petitioner that he had no knowledge. On this ground the revision was dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has stated that the land in dispute was recorded in the name of the father of the petitioner in 1360 -1362 fasli khatauni. The land in dispute remained throughout in the possession of the father of the petitioner and after his death the petitioner has been in possession over it. Even after carvation of chaks the petitioner remained in possession of the land in dispute and could not know about the illegality committed in basic consolidation record and it is only while preparing the case of Haridas vs. Mohan, counsel examined the entire record and found that these two plots were not recorded in the name of the petitioner as such the petitioner filed an objection along with a delay condonation application and in the circumstances the delay was liable to be condoned. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, 1998(89) RD 607 and judgments of this Court in Banarasi vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and others, 2009(107) RD 224 and Chandra Pal and another vs. State of U.P. though Principal Secretary Revenue, U.P., Lucknow and others, 2012(117) RD 160 in which the Supreme Court as well as this Court have consistently taken the view that while condoning the delay the authorities were required to take a liberal view so as to serve the ends of justice and not to defeat it. Accordingly, the consolidation authorities were required to take a liberal view and should have condoned the delay.;