Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri C.K. Rai Learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.S. Tripathi holding brief of Sri H.S.N. Tripathi for the contesting respondent nos. 3 and 4.
(2.) The facts are that petitioner and his uncle respondent no. 3 and 4 were joint tenure holders of the disputed plots. The share of the petitioner is 1/2 and the respondent no. 3 and 4 held the other half jointly. During the chak allotment proceeding the petitioner was allotted two chaks at the stage of consolidation Officer and the contesting respondent no. 3 and 4 were allotted separate chaks. An appeal was filed by the respondent no. 3 in which an alleged compromise was filed that the petitioner and respondent no. 3 and 4 may be allotted a joint chak. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 8.3.1983 allowed the appeal on the basis of compromise and a joint chak was allotted in favour of petitioner and respondent no. 3 and 4. Since the interest of the petitioner was looked after by his uncle respondent no. 3 and 4 as such he never came to know about the order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation. It was only when there was a dispute in the family in the year 1986 and the petitioner separated himself from his uncle, he came to know about the order dated 8.3.1983 passed by Settlement Officer consolidation. Thereafter, He filed a revision challenging the appellate order along with an application under section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 12.5.1987 dismissed the revision on the ground that since copy of the order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation has not been filed even though the revision has been filed after lapse of three years as such revision was not maintainable. He has further held that the petitioner has only made an allegation that compromise was arrived at fraudulently but no details about the alleged fraud has been mentioned and there is no day today explanation of delay in filing the revisions as such the revision is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once revision was entertained and record was summoned by the Deputy director of Consolidation he could not have dismissed the revision on the technical ground that order of Settlement Officer Consolidation impugned in the revision was not filed along with the memo of revision. It has further been urged that vide application dated 27.3.1987 filed before the Deputy director of Consolidation the petitioner had explained the delay and the fraud but without considering the same Deputy director of Consolidation rejected the revision. In reply the learned counsel for the respondent has tried to justify the impugned order.;