Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.02.2016, whereby the Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners as barred by time and has thereby refused to interfere with the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 05.10.1991 passed in the appeal filed by Dashrath, the father of the petitioner nos. 1 to 5 and husband of petitioner no. 6.
(2.) It appears from the facts narrated in the writ petition that Dashrath, filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer regarding the chaks proposed in his favour by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objections filed by Dashrath. Aggrieved thereby, Dashrath filed Appeal No. 872 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. One more appeal was filed against the same order by some other tenure holder being appeal no. 830. The Settlement Officer Consolidation decided the aforesaid appeals by order dated 05.10.1991 making certain modifications in the chak of Dashrath by allotting plots no. 907, 909 and 910 to him in place of plot nos. 911M and 948M. According to the petitioners, the order of the Settlement Officer was not given effect to on account of an interim order passed in Writ no. 21165 of 1992 Bhullar v. J.S. Tomar. It is further stated in the writ petition that Dashrath was not agreeable with the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation but he could not file writ petition during his life time because the entire record of the case was consigned to the record room on account of the interim order passed in the above referred writ petition. After the death of Dashrath, when the Consolidation Authorities were changing possession of the chaks in the year 2008, the petitioners came to know of the order dated 05.10.1991 and thereafter, they filed revision on 07.05.2010 challenging the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 05.10.1991. The same has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by impugned order dated 19.02.2016.
(3.) It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that the father of the petitioners Dashrath was not in his senses during last stage of his life and consequently, he could not file the appeal. He further submitted that since the record of the appeal was consigned to the record room in pursuance of interim order passed in Writ no. 21165 of 1992, consequently, they could not come to know of the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. It is urged that Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly rejected the revision as barred by time.;