Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against an order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing objections of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to the two plots in dispute and holding that they are the sirdar's of those plots.
(2.) The Bench hearing this petition at the admission stage was of the opinion that this case involved reconsideration of a Division Bench of this Court in Vidya Bhushan v. Parag and others, 1964 RD 260 and directed that it may be heard by a larger Bench at the final hearing. That is how this case has come to this Bench for hearing. We are of opinion that in view of the facts of this case the point decided in Vidya Bhusan's case, 1964 R.D. 260 does not arise and that Vidya Bhushan's case is distinguishable. In Vidya Bhushan's case the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as it stood in 1957, was up for consideration. It was held that under the provisions then prevailing an objection under Section 12 of that Act could be filed before the Assistant Consolidation Officer alone and that if an objection is filed before the Consolidation Officer and proceeded with by him, the proceedings were without jurisdiction. In that case the consolidation Officer had not sent the objection to the Assistant Consolidation Officer for following the procedure prescribed by the Act, namely, to obtain the views of the Land Managing Committee and report. In the instant case, respondents 4 and 5 filed objections on June 15, 1962 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Consolidation Officer forwarded it to the Assistant Consolidation Officer for report. The Assistant Consolidation Officer made a report on July 6, 1962 and on the basis of that report the objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on July 12, 1962. Later on in appeal, the delay in filing the objection was condoned and the matter was remanded for decision on merits.
(3.) It is thus clear that in the present case the objection was initially filed before the Consolidation Officer but it was forthwith transmitted to the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The objection could, therefore, be treated as having been really filed on the date when it reached the Assistant Consolidation Officer. It was barred by time; but the delay in filing it having been condoned, no further defect remained. Merely because it had initially been filed before the Consolidation Officer could not be material to the further proceedings. In the present case the Consolidation Officer proceeded to deal with the objection after he had received it back along with the report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The prevailing provisions of the Act with respect to the entertainment of an objection were satisfied, and as such the decision in Vidya Bhushan's case is distinguishable on facts.;