S.K.SINGH, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and that of the Consolidation Officer dated 15 -11 -1999 and 30 -9 - 1997 Annexure Nos. 15 and 13 respectively.
(2.) FOR disposal of the matter facts in brief will suffice. The dispute relates to the property left by Ram Nirkhan. It is said that Ram Nirkhan had a daughter namely Mst. Srimati who was married with petitioner and Ram Nirkhan had no other issue. After obtaining the permission to alienate the land by way of Will deed in favour of his daughter and son -in -law from the S.D.O. on 1 -6 - 1949 he executed a registered gift deed dated 27 -6 -1949 in their favour. It is said that on the basis of the aforesaid gift deed name of the petitioner and his wife Mst. Srimati was recorded in proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act by order of the Tehsildar dated 6 -1 -1951. It is said that village came under consolidation operation in the year 1969 upon which Kalpnath and Triveni i.e. respondent No. 3 and father of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 filed two separate objections which came to be dismissed by order of the Consolidation Officer dated 18 -5 -1970 and 7 -3 - 1972. It is said that separate chaks were carved out in the name of the petitioner and his wife and delivery of possession took place on 20 -4 -1974. It is thereafter, after about 20 years, on 7 - 3 -1990 fresh objection was filed by Kalpnath and Triveni upon which petitioner on coming to know filed his objection pointing about dismissal of their claim long ago. It is thereafter the respondents filed recall application on 24 -2 -1992 in respect of the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 18 -5 -1970 and 7 -3 - 1972. The claim is that without any notice and opportunity to the petitioner Consolidation Officer by order dated 8 -12 -1993 set aside the earlier orders. On coming to know, petitioner filed an application on 16 -12 -1993 to set aside the order dated 8 -12 -1993 which has been rejected by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 30 -9 -1997 (Annexure No. 13) and revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 15 -11 -1999 (Annexure No. 15 to the writ petition) and thus these orders are under challenge in this petition. Parties Counsel have been heard at length. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Consolidation Officer in allowing application of the respondents by order dated 8 -12 -1993 without recording any finding about sufficiency of cause has committed an error and in any view of the matter as that order was ex -parte the recall application which was promptly filed on 16 -12 -1993 was liable to be allowed and matter was to be decided after, an opportunity to the petitioner. Submission is that Deputy Director of Consolidation also in a cursory and sketchy manner without dealing the matter in issue in proper perspective has dismissed the revision. Submission is that so far setting aside the ex - parte order in the matter condonation of delay it can be said that liberal view is to be taken but at the same time the orders cannot be passed on mere asking of the applicant unless there is sufficient cause and cogent grounds. Submission is that on the facts passing of the impugned orders can be termed to be an arbitrary exercise. In support of the submission that without there being sufficient cause the delay is not to be condoned by considering the matter in casual manner, reliance has been placed on a decision given in the case of Kedar and Ors. v. Assistant Director of Consolidation, reported in 1987 (2) AWC 1385, and the decision given in the case of P.K. Ramchandran v. State of Kerala, reported in 1998 RD 18.
(3.) IN response to the aforesaid submission, Counsel for the respondent submits that Consolidation Officer by considering the matter in detail has rightly condoned the delay and entertained the proceedings on the merits which has been affirmed by the revisional Court and, therefore, no exception can be taken to it. It is submitted that by the impugned orders justice has been done, therefore, no interference is to be made. In support of the submission that against the orders condoning the delay higher Courts are not to interfere, reliance has been placed on a decision given in the case of Shanti Prasad Gupta v. Deputy Director of Consolidation reported in 1984 RD 382.;