S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) Challenge in this petition is the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 7.8.2004 (Arvnexure-11) and that of the appellate authority dated 14.3.2002 (Annexure-3) to the writ petition. Pleadings are complete, as requested by learned Counsel for the parties, matter is being finally heard and decided.
(2.) The dispute between the parties relates to the land situated in village Dubauli and Rudhauli in district Mahara-jganj. At this stage, it will be proper to mention that as records are said to have been weeded out on 2.11.1999, respective details are being given, in the light of their submission which may not be treated to be totally correct and as and when matter is to be dealt with by the consolidation authorities they will have to taste in the light of whatever material which parties may place before them. Be as it may, in the light of facts as placed before this court, details are being given in this judgment.
(3.) It is claimed by the petitioners that in respect to both villages, objections were filed by the opposite party claiming exclusive right in the land, upon which, a compromise was arrived at in respect to village Dubauli on 17.5.1976 and in respect of village Rudhauli on 7.7.1976. Two separate orders are said to have been passed by the Consolidation Officer and Assistant Consolidation Officer in respect to both villages respectively. Submission is that CH Form 23 was prepared and chaks were carved out in the year 2000. The respondent No. 2 filed two separate appeals against the order of Consolidation Officer/Assistant Consolidation Officer. It is pointed out that in the Appeal No. 1212 filed by opposite party, there is specific averment in the memo of appeal that compromise was filed only in respect to village Dubauli and a prayer was made to pass order in respect to the land of that village but surreptitiously the land of village Rudhauli has been added and therefore, part of judgment dated 17.7.1976 passed by the Consolidation Officer was prayed to be set aside. It is claimed that the appeal was filed by opposite party after delay of about 25 years and without any finding on the question of limitation based on any analysis, appeals have been allowed and the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 17.5.1976 and 7.7.1976 have been set aside and the matter was sent back to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision. The claim is that Revisional Court also without adverting to the relevant aspects, has dismissed the revision. Submission based on the aforesaid is that in absence of required finding to entertain and decide the appeal after lapse of 25 years, the decision as given by the appellate authority as confirmed by Revisional Court cannot be said to be just and proper and therefore, both judgments needs interference.;