Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) Ramai and Lachchu were brothers. A chak No. 585 in the name of Mst. Niwasi widow of Ramai and lacchu was allotted. Mst. Niwasi and Lacchu died. An application under section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by one Inari the respondent No. 6 alleging that she is the daughter of Lachchu and is therefore entitled to inherit the chak. It appears that the petitioner Munni Lal also filed an application under section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for mutating his name on the basis that Inari the respondent No. 6 is an impostor and that he as the son of Pheru another brother of Ramai and Lacchu was entitled to inherit. This application was dismissed in default but the case of the petitioner is that a restoration application is pending. The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 22.5.1982 directed mutation of Inaris name. Against the order dated 22.5 1982 the petitioner Munni Lal filed a Revision No. 74 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. After mutation of her name Inari is said to have executed a sale deed dated 23.9.1982 in favour of respondents 3,4 and 5. Ram Dhani, Sidh Nath and Ram Briksha, there names were ordered to be mutated by the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 23.10.1982. This order was also challenged by Munni Lal the petitioner in Revision No. 13 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. As there is a dispute as to whether the respondent No. 6 was the daughter of Lacchu the Deputy Director of Consolidation called for a report from the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer gave his report-dated 20.10.1983, which is cryptic that Inari who was represented by Sri Udai Raj Singh, Advocate was the real Inari. The report was challenged by the petitioner in revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation passed an order in the Revision Nos. 74 and 13 holding that Inari whose name was mutated in place of Lacchu by the order dated 22.5.1982 was the real Inari. This finding is also based not upon any material but on the ground that burden of proving otherwise lay upon Munni Lal. The petitioner filed a writ petition against that order, which was dismissed in limine on 10.4.1985.
(2.) The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh heard the revisions finally and dismissed the Revision No. 74 against the order dated 22.5.1982 on the ground of limitation. It appears that the revision was filed on 3.9.1982 and there was thus some delay, which was sought to be explained by the petitioner on the basis that he did not have any knowledge about the order dated 22.5.1982 and that order had been passed without notice as there was no proper Ishtihar concerning the proceedings and that it was when he heard a rumour in the village on 25.8.1982 that order for mutation of her name was obtained by the respondent that he filed the revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has found that it was the duty of the petitioner to explain each day's delay and that the explanation given by him was vague. It has also been found by him that the petitioner did not disclose the fact that his mutation application has been dismissed on 12.2.1982. The order is based on the finding that the petitioner was trying to conceal the fact about the order-dated 12.2.1982 by which his application was dismissed. It has not been explained in the order as to how that concealment is relevant to the date of knowledge of the order dated 22.5.1982, which was passed in a different case. In the circumstances the grounds given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in dismissing the revision on the ground of limitation are not tenable. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the Revision No. 74 against the order dated 22.5.1982 is, therefore, liable to be set aside and the Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the question of condonation of delay afresh.
(3.) We now come to the order passed in the Revision No. 13 against the order of mutation dated 23.10.1982. That revision has been dismissed on merits with the finding that the mutation was made on the basis of compromise before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. It would be noticed that the petitioner's grievance against both the mutation orders is that Inari who had applied for mutation or had executed a sale deed in favour of the respondents was an impostor. It was therefore required to be seen whether the real Inari had entered into the compromise before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. If the Revision No. 74 is allowed the finding in that order may have a bearing upon the other revision also. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that the order-dated 23.10.1982 is based on a compromise. But no finding has been recorded that the person who entered into the compromise was the real Inari and daughter of Lacchu. In the circumstances the order in Revision No. 13 is also set aside. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is required to decide both the revisions afresh. As the matter is an old one the Deputy Director of Consolidation is expected to decide the case at an early date. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.1.1986 is set aside. It will be open to the parties to press before the Deputy Director of Consolidation all other contentions available to them. Petition Allowed.;