Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri B.B. Mandhyan, Senior Advocate assisted by Kumar Anish, Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Sri Santosh Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.
(2.) The dispute relates to plot Nos. 269/2 and 269/3 recorded in the name of the petitioners and 309 which was recorded in the name of Smt. Rashida Khatoon. During consolidation operation, on the basis of an alleged compromise an order dated 25.6.1983 was passed by the assistant Consolidation Officer by which the name of Smt. Rashida Khatoon was expunged from plot No. 309/3 and the same was directed to be recorded in the name of the petitioners and the plot Nos. 269/2 and 269/3 were directed to be recorded in the name of Khursheed Ali (now represented by respondent Nos. 4 to 6). A belated appeal was filed by the petitioners challenging the said order on the ground that no such compromise ever took place and the order was obtained by practicing fraud. It was also alleged that the said order never saw the light of the day and was not in the knowledge of the petitioners and it came to knowledge only when the contesting respondents forcibly tried to take possession of the plots in dispute on 5.7.1999. The Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved they went up in revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 29.4.2002 allowed the revision and remanded the case back to the Settlement Officer Consolidation with a direction to decide the question of limitation as a preliminary issue and thereafter, accordingly decide the appeal. After remand, the Settlement Officer Consolidation considered the question of limitation and found that there are no sufficient reasons to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by time. The appeal has also been dismissed on the ground that since the notification under section 52 has been issued and there is no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The main ground on which the appeal has been dismissed as barred by limitation is that the compromise order has been challenged after a long time and it cannot be believed that the order was not executed and the petitioners continued in possession over the land even after the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision which has also been dismissed.
(3.) It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has wrongly rejected the appeal as barred by limitation without considering the reasons given by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay and in the circumstances, the delay was liable to be condoned.;