- (1.) R. P. Yadav, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) NONE appears for opposite party No. 3. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 7-8-1980, passed by Consolidation Officer, Patti, District Pratapgarh and the order dated 28-8-1984, passed by Deputy Director (Consolidation), Patti, Pratapgarh, rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation for Condonation of Delay in filing of the objection under Section 9-A (2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act ). Dispute relates to plot No. 124 measuring 3 bigha, 16 biswa 5 dhur situated in village Kashipur, pargana and tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh. Opposite party No. 3, Smt. Dhanraji (since deceased) was the recorded tenure holder of the said plot. When the village came under consolidation sometime before 1971 and the relevant forms were issued to the chak-holders asking for the objections sometime in the 1971, Shri Bisesar, father of the petitioner, filed an objection, claiming sirdari right over the said plot. His objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Act was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer and the order of dismissal of his objection was upheld by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in appeal and by Deputy Director (Consolidation) in revision. The village was denotified under Section 52 of the Act on 14- 3-1978.
(3.) THE petitioner filed an objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Act alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. THEre is a dispute with regard to the date of filing of this objection. According to the petitioner, it was filed on 6-11- 1977, whereas the learned Consolidation Officer has held that it was actually filed sometime in November, 1978, after the de- notification of the village under Section 52 of the Act. However, the opposite party No. 3 opposed the prayer of the petitioner. THE Consolidation Officer held that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay as the petitioner has himself received the notice on 28-9-1971 on behalf of his father, Bisesar, which was issued from the Court of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and, therefore, there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Some other grounds were also mentioned. THE order passed by the Consolidation Officer was confirmed by the Deputy Director (Consolidation) in revision under Section 48 of the Act. It is this order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director (Consolidation) declining to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Act, which have been challenged through this petition.;