Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 23 June 2016 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Camp Kannauj, allowing the restoration application filed by the fourth respondent. As a result of the said order, the order dated 19 June 1989 dismissing the appeal in default has been set-aside and the appeal has been restored and has been directed to be heard on merits. The order passed by the respondent No. 2 dated 14 October 2016 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners is also subject matter of challenge.
(2.) It transpires from the facts stated in the writ petition that in proceedings under section 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the objections filed by the father of the petitioners was allowed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 4 February 1985. Aggrieved by the said order, Smt. Rajeshwari Devi acting as guardian of her three minor sons namely Ram Pal, Ramanand and Ram Prakash filed appeal under section 11(1) of the Act before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The appeal came to be dismissed in default on 19 June 1989. However, no restoration application was filed by Smt. Rajeshwari Devi and ultimately, she died on 13 October 1996. The fourth respondent filed restoration application on 31 May 2013 along with an application seeking condonation of delay. In the application, the fourth respondent stated that the appeal was filed when he was a minor. It was dismissed in default in the absence of Rajeshwari Devi, his guardian. A day prior to the filing of the restoration application, effort was made to dispossess him. Thereafter, the records were got inspected and then he came to know of the order dated 4 February 1985 and about dismissal of appeal in default. The restoration application was opposed by the petitioners by filing objections contending that the two other brothers of the fourth respondent had attained majority long back but they did not file any restoration application. The restoration application was highly delayed and deserves to be rejected. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by impugned order dated 23 June 2016 allowed the restoration application and restored the appeal to its original number. The revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by impugned order dated 14 October 2016.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the restoration application was filed with gross delay. It is urged that Ramanand, brother of the fourth respondent died in the year 2002 and Ram Prakash, in the year 2000. They had attained majority long back, but they did not file any restoration application, though they were aware of the dismissal of the appeal. It is submitted that a specific objection in that regard was raised by the petitioners, but the same has not been taken into consideration.;