Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ravi Nath Tilhari, for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 1.8.2013, rejecting the application of the petitioner for deciding delay condonation application first, before hearing arguments on merit in the appeal and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 4.6.2014, dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order, arising out of title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) GAON Sabha and State of U.P. (respondents -3 and 4) filed an appeal from the order of Consolidation Officer dated 3.8.1987, on 27.12.1991, along with delay condonation application. The petitioner filed an objection in delay condonation application as well as his reply to memorandum of appeal on 21.1.2011. The petitioner requested Settlement Officer Consolidation, for deciding delay condonation application, before hearing arguments on merit in the appeal. Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 1.8.2013, rejected the request of the petitioner and held that arguments in delay condonation application and in the appeal on merit would be heard together. The petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order, which has been dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Hence this writ petition has been filed. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that section 11 of the Act provides 21 days limitation for filing the appeal against the order of Consolidation Officer. Although by virtue of section 53 -B of the Act, section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 has been applied in the proceedings under the Act but so long as delay in filing the appeal is not condoned, a time barred appeal cannot be treated a valid appeal nor it can be heard on merit. Issue relating to limitation is an issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court. So long as delay is not condoned, Settlement Officer Consolidation has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal on merit. Otherwise also, if delay is not condoned, there will no obligation on the respondent in the appeal to argue it on merit. Orders of respondents -1 and 2 are illegal and liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Bhagwat v. DDC and others, : 1990 RD 162 Prabhu v. DDC and others, : 2013 (118) RD 48 and Jais Lal v. DDC and others, : 2014 (122) RD 118 in which it has been held that delay condonation application should be decided first and in case delay is condoned, then arguments in appeal on merit be heard otherwise the appeal be dismissed as time barred.
(3.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. Section 11 of the Act, which provides the provision for appeal is quoted below: Section 11 -Appeal. - -(1) Any party to the proceedings under section 9 -A aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer or the Consolidation Officer under that section may within 21 days of the date of the order, file an appeal before Settlement Officer Consolidation, who shall after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned, give his decision thereon which, except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, shall be final and not be questioned in any Court of law.;