- (1.) R. B. Mehrotra, J. The dispute in the present case relates to the agricultural land in Khata No. 145 situate in village Lar Tappa Balia, Pergana Salempur Majhauli, district Deoria. The Notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') was issued in regard to the agricultural land situate in the aforesaid village some time in the year 1971. The petitioner filed an objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, in regard to the aforesaid Khata some time in the year 1979, alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning delay in filing objection. The aforesaid application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, was duly supported by an affidavit. In the affidavit, the petitioner had contended that the agricultural land of Khata No. 145 of village Lar Tappa was joint family property of petitioner and respondent No. 1, who has been arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the present matter and they were owners of half and half shares. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are co-tenure-holder of the aforesaid land even before U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was enforced and are paying land revenue jointly. In the affidavit it was further stated that the petitioner is in Government employment and his uncle Jangi Singh (respondent No. 2) was looking after the litigation and Sri Jangi Singh has manoeuvred that the petitioners name be deleted from the revenue record of the aforesaid Khata. In the affidavit it was further stated that the petitioner came to know of the aforesaid manoeurvring on hearing rumour on 20-6-1979, on which date petitioner inspected revenue record. It was further stated in the affidavit that the petitioner has not intentionally delayed, the filing of objection. In reply to the aforesaid affidavit, respondent No. 2 did not file any counter-affidavit before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, but he chose to file objection to the aforesaid affidavit, wherein the respondent has contended that the petitioner is a well read person and is an employee of State Government and was working in the collection department under Naib-Tehsildar and the petitioner had due knowledge of the consolidation proceedings in the village. The explanation for delay given by the petitioner is not acceptable. It was further contended that the land in dispute has been acquired solely by the respondent No. 2.
(2.) THE Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 6-10-1980 condoned the delay in filing objection on the condition that the petitioner pays cost of Rs. 40 to the respondents. The Consolidation Officer in his order accepted petitioner's contention that since he was an employee of the State Government, he could not know about manipulation in consolidation proceedings and on the aforesaid basis allowed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No. 2 filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 27-6-1981 allowed the said revision and set aside the order dated 6-10-1980 passed by the Consolidation Officer and rejected the petitioner's application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed present writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, Sri A. K. Mishra in support ofthe writ petition and Sri Sankatha Rai in opposition thereof.;