- (1.) HEARD Shri S.K. Purwar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. The writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (the DDC) on 09.05.2014. By this order, the orders dated 03.11.2012 and 11.11.2013 have been set aside.
(2.) BY these orders the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned, the appeal itself allowed and the matter remanded to the CO for afresh decision after setting aside an order dated 21.1.2000. The facts of the case material to the controversy are that the property was recorded in the name one Kaushalya Devi, who is said to have died some time between 1996 -98. On her death, the name of her husband Hansraj was mutated over the property in question by an order passed on 21.1.2000. Hansraj executed a sale -deed of the same in favour of contesting respondent no. 2 in 2007 who is said to have been mutated on the basis of the said sale -deed. Hansraj died in the year 2010 and after his death, an appeal was filed against the order dated 12.1.2002 by the petitioners claiming to be the sons and the heirs of the Kaushalya Devi. This appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay.
(3.) IT appears that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (the SOC) condoned the delay only on the ground that no counter was filed to the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application. After condoning the delay appeal was allowed and the matter remanded to the Consolidation Officer (the CO) for afresh decision after hearing the parties. The orders of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation were challenged by means of revision no. 270 /2014 -14 Meghnath vs. Kuldeep and others. This revision has been allowed by the order dated 09.05.2014 and hence the writ petition. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order condoning the delay was a discretionary order within the jurisdiction of the SOC and, therefore the DDC has committed patently illegality in interfering with this such discretionary order. He further submits that the matter has been remanded to the CO for afresh decision on merits, therefore, there was no occasion for the contesting respondents to have filed a revision against such remand order. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the impugned order. The DDC has categorically recorded that the delay had been condoned by a single line order to the effect that since the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application had not been converted, the delay was liable to be condoned. He has further recorded that it is clear from the record of appellate court that notices were issued to the revisionist (contesting respondents in the revision) by registered post. Notices were returned back unserved and yet the service of notice was held to be sufficient and in the absence of the revisionist (contesting respondents) the delay has been condoned on the ground that there was no opposition to the affidavit filed support of the delay condonation application. He has, therefore, held that the order of the SOC is patently illegal as the revisionist (contesting respondent) had not been served any notice and, therefore, he could not appear and contest the delay condonation application and for this reason the order condoning the delay was liable to be set aside. He has accordingly allowed the revision.;