- (1.) HEARD Sri V.K. Singh for the petitioner.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order of Consolidation Officer, dated 20.05.2013, condoning the delay in filing the objection under Section 9 -A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 18.12.2013, dismissing the revision of the petitioner, filed against the aforesaid order. Sopal Singh (respondent -6) filed an objection under Section 9A of the Act before the Consolidation Officer, on 04.10.2012, along with delay condonation application. It has been stated by Sopal Singh that he was an advocate and practicing at Muzaffarnagar and used to reside there. Padam Singh used to look after the cases of in consolidation, on his behalf. He could never know that no objection regarding partition of the joint family property has been filed on his behalf within time. It is only on 03.10.2012, during talks with Lal Singh, he came to know about the fact that no objection for partition of joint family property has been filed. Thereafter he filed the objection on
(3.) 10.2012, along with delay condonation application. 4. The petitioner contested the delay condonation application and filed counter affidavit, in which he has been stated that the cases in respect of correction of area as well as correction of the names over the disputed khata itself have been referred to the Consolidation Officer, on the objection being raised by Sopal Singh and the matter was decided by Consolidation Officer, by order dated 18.11.2010. An objection against the determination of valuation has also been filed on behalf of Sopal Singh. Sopal Singh, being an advocate, had knowledge of the notification of the village under Section 9 of the Act, which took place on 07.06.2010 and there is no ground for condoning the delay. The delay condonation application was heard by Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 20.05.2013, held that as the proceeding relating to consolidation in the village is still going on and the consolidation is final settlement of the record, as such, in the interest of justice, the delay was liable to be condoned. On this finding, the delay has been condoned. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 146) against the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 18.12.2013, held that the order condoning the delay is an interlocutory order, as such, the revision is not maintainable. Otherwise also, there is no merit in the revision. Accordingly, the revision was dismissed. Hence,this writ petition has been filed.;