S. D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out Of consolidation proceedings.
(2.) THE dispute relates to khata nos. 87, 155 and 157 of village Mangrauli, pargana Jewer, district Bulandshahr. It is alleged that the petitioners claimed to be sirdars and their names were also recorded in the revenue records. One Smt. Atarra Devi, who alleged herself to be the widow of Sohan Lal, filed an objection in the consolidation proceedings claiming one-third share in the khatas in dispute. During the pendency of these objections, she died. THEreafter, Karan Singh, who is now respondent no. 4, made an application for substitution. The consolidation officer allowed the substitution application of Karan Singh and also allowed the objections of Smt. Atarra Devi and declared her to be entitled to one-third share in the khatas in dispute. Aggrieved by the decision of the Consolidation Officer, two appeals were filed by the petitioners before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Both the appeals were allowed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by his order dated 17th April, 1971, and the entire case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard. This order was passed, as it was found that the Consolidation Officer had passed the order against the petitioners ex parte and without giving them an opportunity of being heard. Aggrieved by the decision dated 17th April, 1971, respondent no. 4 filed a first review application. This was rejected on 26th April, 1972. Thereafter, a second review application was filed by the respondent no. 4. It was rejected on 12th July, 1972. Respondent no. 4, thereafter, filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation challenging the orders dated 17th April, 1971, and 12th July 1972. The revision was allowed by order dated 20th September, 1973, and the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 17th April, 1971, has been set aside. The petitioners have now challenged the order dated 20th September, 1973, by means of the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order, which was challenged by way of a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, was dated 17th April, 1971, and this revision having been filed much beyond the period of limitation, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to set aside the order dated 17th April, 1971 unless the delay in filing the revision had been condoned. In fact, the further argument is that no application had been made for condonation of the delay and the limitation for filing the revision was to be counted from 17th April 1971 and not from 12th July, 1972, when the second review application was rejected and, consequently, the revision was patently filed beyond time.
(3.) IN my opinion, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is well founded. The review applications were dismissed on 26th April, 1972, and 12th July, 1972. By the mere dismissal of the review applications, the respondent no. 4 could not get an extension of the limitation which started running against the respondent no. 4 with effect from 17th April, 1971. The respondent no. 4 should have challenged the order dated 17th April. 1971, within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, as provided under Rule 111 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1953. The revision was clearly barred by time. The period of limitation could not have been taken from 12th July, 1972, when the second review application was rejected. IN the circumstances, the revision being barred by time, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision in the absence of any application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and, thereafter, to set aside the order dated 17th April, 1971. From a perusal of the order, it is clear that the revisional court was not exercising its suo motu power of setting aside the order dated 17th April, 1971. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The order dated 30th January, 1973, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is, quashed and that of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 17th April 1971, is restored. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.;