RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA),J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 24.6.1987 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13.6.1996 and 23.6.2016 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
(2.) The dispute between the parties was in respect of land of khata no.227 of village Bhauri, pargana Karvi, district Banda (at present Chitrakoot). In basic consolidation year names of the petitioner along with Mata Prasad (now represented by respondents 4 to 6) were recorded over the land in dispute. Mata Prasad filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act for deleting the names of other persons from the khata in dispute. Mata Prasad had stated that the land in dispute was the property of her mother Smt.Ram Dulari, who was bhumidhar of land in dispute. Smt. Ram Dulari, who had got it from her mother. The other recorded persons were real uncle of the petitioner and their names were wrongly entered in the land in dispute although they had no share in the property inherited by mother of Mata Prasad. Consolidation Officer by order dated 25.5.1983 dismissed the objection of Mata Prasad and maintained the basic consolidation year entry and in place of deceased the names of their heirs were substituted. Mata Prasad filed an appeal from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who by judgment dated 24.6.1986 held that in 1359 fasli khatauni land in dispute was recorded as khudkast of Smt. Ram Dulari mother of Mata Prasad. Ram Sajivan in his statement admitted that Smt. Ram Dulari was Zamindar of the village. So far as other recorded persons namely, Shiv Autar, Ram Autar, Baijanth , Ram Swarup are concerned they could not prove that how their names were entered over the land in dispute. The name of Shiv Autar came to be record for the first time in khatauni 1378 -80 fasli without any order of a competent authority over the land in dispute.Baijnath, Ram Swarup and Ram Autar did not adduce any material before the Consolidation Officer. On this finding he allowed the appeal and directed for deleting the names of other recorded persons from khata in dispute. Ram Autar, Ram Sajivan, Kedar Nath and Jagdish Prasad jointly filed a revision from the aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision in default of the revisionists on 13.3.1996. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application for recall of the order dated 13.3.1996 along with a delay condonation application for the first time on 16.12.2014. In the delay condonation application as well as in the affidavit filed in support of it, it has been stated that the revision was jointly filed by four persons. Ram Autar was old and always remained ill. Therefore, on behalf of revisionists Kedar Nath son of Jagannath was doing pairvi Ram Autar died on 18.6.1990 and Kedar Nath had also died. Therefore, no one could watch the revision. The counsel for the revisionists got colluded with the respondent and he did not give information recording dismissal of the revision of revisionists in default. It is only on 28.11.2014 when Shyam Sunder, petitioner, went to village Bhauri then he came to know that revision was dismissed in default. Thereafter, on inquiry being made, he came to know about the order dated 13.3.1996. In such circumstances delay was liable to be condoned. Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 23.6.2016 found that there is no reason for Shyam Sunder not go to village Bhauri in between the period 13.3.1996 and 28.11.2014 although other revisionists were residing in the village Bhauri itself. Thus, there is no ground for condoning the inordinate delay. On this finding he rejected the delay condonation application and dismissed the restoration application as time barred.
(3.) I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties.;