A. Banerji, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has come up before us on a reference by a learned Single Judge to consider the question 'whether the revisional authority under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act can allow revision petition without indicating whether the appeal filed by the Applicant in revision having been dismissed on the ground of limitation was illegally, incorrectly and improperly decided or the Appellant had sufficient cause for condonation of delay in perferring the appeal.
(2.) THE learned Single Judge referred to the decisions in the case of Basalat v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1983 ALJ 30 ; Ram Apt v. Deputy Director of Consolidation , 1980 ALJ 1160 and Hori Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation , 1982 ALJ 223 whets the view taken was that the revisional authority is entitled to allow too revision petition even where the appeal filed by the Applicant in revision was barred by time. The Learned Single Judge was of the view that if the revisional authority does not address itself to the question whether the appeal was incorrectly, illegally or improperly dismissed on the ground of limitation or whether the Appellant was entitled to condonation of delay in preferring the appeal, it has no jurisdiction to allow the revision petition, at the instance of an aggrieved party'. In order to consider the question it would be necessary to notice the relevant facts briefly. Chak No. 143 was proposed for Respondent No. 2, Chinkoo. Chinkoo, Respondent No. 2 had, however, filed an objection but subsequently in a statement on 31 -3 -1974 he had prayed that his chak may not be disturbed and his objection may be dismissed. Consolidation officer by an order the same day dismissed the objection as not pressed. The plots which were allotted to the Petitioner were User in nature and a brick -kiln used to be run on a part of the same. The Petitioner made substantial investment in order to develop the 5 plots allotted to him to make the soil productive. These plots had become productive subsequently and started yielding good products. It appears that. Chinkoo became aware of the changed situation and filed an appeal on 11 -6 -1974. This appeal was undoubtedly filed beyond time and was not accompanied by any explanation for the delay nor was a prayer made for condonation of delay. No affidavit had been filed as well. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by his order dated 29 -6 -74 dismissed the appeal. Thereupon Chinkoo had filed a revision before the Respondent No. 1, Joint Director of Consolidation. The latter allowed the revision and interfered with the allotment of chaks. The Joint Director did not pass any order holding that the delay in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned nor had passed any order treating the appeal to be maintainable. The Petitioner had thereupon filed the present writ petition. Apart from stating the above facts, the Petitioner had also raised the point that the land allotted to the Petitioner was of a very poor quality and the Petitioner had improved its soil condition to make it productive and while interfering with the allotment the Joint Director had failed to take into consideration this aspect of the matter and had not even awarded any compensation for the improved quality of the land. Some plots were taken out of the chak of the Petitioner without assigning any reason. There was a difference of about 35 per cent in the area originally held by the Petitioner and that was now being allotted to him by the Joint Director. It was also urged that Respondent No. 2 having made a statement that the original allotment be maintained and his objection be dismissed, as not pressed, was not entitled to raise any plea of being dissatisfied with the proposed allotment of chaks and as such his appeal was not maintainable before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The Petitioner has, therefore, prayed for the quashing of the order dated 21 -2 -1980 passed by the Respondent No. 1.
(3.) IN the counter affidavit on behalf of Chincoo, Respondent No. 2 it was stated that the chaks proposed in favour of the Respondent were not permissible and the statement made by him could not be treated in the nature of a compromise. In any event if it was against law, it was void. Secondly, the improvement made during the consolidation proceedings could not be taken Into consideration. Thirdly, the revision can be filed ignoring the appellate order and the Joint Director in his inherent jurisdiction can rectify the chak.;