- (1.) Heard Sri Vimal Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 3, Sri B.L. Mishra, and Sri J.K.Sinha, learned counsel for contesting respondents and perused the record.
(2.) Facts, in brief, of the present case are that aggrieved by the order dated 31.7.1996 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Bahraich/Shrawasti, petitioner filed a revision on 3.11.2000 under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act. By means of order dated 29.5.2001 Deputy Director of Consolidation , Bahraich/Shrawasti dismissed the revision on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved by the said facts, petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) Sri B.L. Misra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents on the basis of questioner submits that in respect to the land in dispute under Section 6(i) a notification no.1483/G-u/s 6(i)/2013-2014(iv) has been published in official gazette on 3.4.2014, the same is taken on record. Thus, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the first and foremost fact to be decided in the present case is that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.7.1996 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation , Bahraich by way of revision before opposite party no.1 on 3.11.2000, taking into consideration the said fact whether the action on the part of opposite party no.1 dismissing the revision of the petitioner on the ground of delay is correct or not.;