- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respon dents No. 1 to 3.
(2.) PERUSED the record. Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the Additional Collector (Administration)/deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and affirm ing the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 24-1-1983, whereunder in the proceedings for concilia tion envisaged under Section 9-A of the aforesaid Act, the holding in dispute which pertains to Khata No. 106 recorded in the names of Terhai and Barsati was partitioned dividing the same by demarcating an area of 1 Bigha 350 Karis to be that of Terhai and the area of 2 Bigha 308 Karis to be that of Barsati, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as that of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Con solidation dismissing the appeal filed by him challenging the order passed in the concilia tion proceedings. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. The agricultural hold ing pertaining to Khata No. 106 in dispute was recorded in the basic year in the names of Terhai and Barsati. Subsequent to the issue of the notice inviting objections, two disputes relating to the Khata in question were registered as case No. 2802 and 2803. One dispute was in regard to the correction of the total area of Khata which was re quired to be reduced on the basis of the exclusion of an area of 211 Karis on account of the said area having been acquired for construction of a canal. The other dispute was in regard to the partition of the Khata separating the land belonging to the recorded tenure holders. Both the disputes were disposed of by the Assistant Con solidation Officer by conciliation between the parties appearing before him. In the conciliation which took place before the Assistant Consolidation Officer in the presence of the two members of the Con solidation Committee of the village it was settled that besides reducing the area which had gone out for canal an area of 1 Bigha 350 Karis was to be recorded in the name of Terhai and an area of 2 Bigha 308 Karis was to be recorded in the name of Barsati. The 'samjhauta' between the recorded tenure holders agreeing to the reduction of the total area of the agricultural holding per taining to the Khata in question by reducing the same after excluding the area acquired for the purpose of the canal and partitioning the remaining area on the basis of actual possession of the parties was duly verified by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the entries in the revenue records were ordered to be corrected accordingly.
(3.) HOWEVER, Terhai, the petitioner filed a belated appeal, challenging the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 24-1-1983. This appeal was filed on 24-3-1983. The Settlement Officer, Consolida tion, while considering the question of con donation of delay in filing the appeal ex pressed the view that the appellant was not entitled to the condonation of delay as he had not given an explanation for each day of the delay. But the Assistant Settlement Of ficer, Consolidation entered into the merits of the appeal as well and after recording a finding that the 'samjhauta' in question did bear the thumb impression of both the tenure holders and was duly verified by the Authority before whom the tenure holders including the petitioner had accepted the correctness therefor, there could be no jus tification for any interference in that order passed on the basis of conciliation. The petitioner sought to challenge the aforesaid order passed by the appellate authority by means of a revision under Sec tion 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Hold ings Act. The Revising Authority found that the 'samjhauta' in question did bear the thumb impressions of the tenure holders and two members of the Consolidation Committee of the village had also signed thereon. He further noticed that Terhai had accepted his having put his thumb impres sion on the 'samjhauta. On the aforesaid circumstances, the Deputy Director of Con solidation refused to interfere upholding the order passed by the Assistant Con solidation Officer.;