- (1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) THOUGH the case has been taken up in the revised list no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 17-1-1977 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners as barred by time. It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners that once the Deputy Director of Consolidation entertained the revision and issued notices it was not open to him to dismiss the same as barred by time. Reliance in support of the contention has been placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rama Kant Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1974 RD 262. It has further urged that the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the appellate order is dated 17-1-1975 is based on misreading of record as the same is dated 17-12-1975.
(3.) THE Deputy Director of Consolidation while dismissing the revision has recorded a finding that the application to obtain certified copy of the appellate order dated 17-1-1975 was made on 4-2-1976. THE certified copy was made ready on 10-2-1976 and was delivered on the same day and the revision has been field on 11- 2-1976 and thus barred by time. This Court vide order dated 14-4-1980 has summoned the record of the Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation and the same is available on the record of the writ petition. I have perused the same. A perusal of the record indicates that the revision was field on 11-2-1976 on which notices were issued in November, 1976 fixing 27-11-1976. THE record of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was also available with Deputy Director of Consolidation. THE revision was finally heard on 15-1-1977 and was dismissed as barred by time on 17-1-1977. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rama Kant Singh (supra) has held that after the record is called for by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act, he should examine the record to decide whether it was a fit case for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Such opinion shall have to be formed where the application in revision moved by the parties is defective, having made beyond the prescribed period of limitation or all the necessary parties have not been impleaded.;