- (1.) S. K. Singh, J. On revision of list, Sri Tripathi E. G. Bhai learned Advocate has been heard.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this petition is the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which revision filed by the respondents against the order of appellate authority condoning delay in filing appeal and permitting the parties to be heard on merits was allowed and the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation was set aside. After notification of the consolida tion, petitioner claimed that a time barred claim was filed by respondents which is said to have been decided by means of compromise, petitioner filed appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation which was delayed for about one year. The Set tlement Officer, Consolidation condoned the delay in filing appeal after recording a finding that in the compromise, there is a thumb impression of petitioner, although in appeal there is signature. Against the order condoning delay, a revision was filed by the respondents which has been allowed. On perusal of judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation, it is clear that no finding on the question of insufficiency of cause has been given. The only thing which has been said by revising authority is that appellate authority has not assigned good reason and in the interest of justice, delay has been condoned. Be as it may, if this was the situation then it was for the revising authority either to have considered the explanation for delay at his level or should have remitted the matter back to the appel late authority but in no case allowing of revision and setting aside the order of ap pellate authority- without assigning any reason to disagree with the explanation so given can be said to be justified. Needless to say that it has been repeatedly said by this Court and the Apex Court that in the matter of condonation of delay a lenient view is to be taken in order to advance substantial justice. Proceeding were under section 9-A (2) of UPCH Act which is about adjudication of title and af ter close of consolidation proceedings, any claim by a party is to be barred in view of section 49 of UPCH Act. Thus, this Court is satisfied that condonation of delay by ap pellate authority was in the ends of justice rather allowing of revision by the revising authority is to the great detriment to the petitioner's interest and that can be said to defeat the justice.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment of the revising authority is hereby quashed. Appellate Authority is directed to revive the appeal and to decide the same on merits, in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity of hear ing to both sides, preferably within a pe riod of four months from the date of pres entation of a certified copy of this order, which petitioner undertakes to file before the appellate authority, within a period of three weeks from today. Petition Allowed. .;