DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri V.K. Mishra and Mohd. Rafi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Zahir Ahmad Khan and Sri Fareed Ahmad, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 4/1, 4/2 and 4/3.
(2.) This writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 07.11.2006, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, whereby the proceedings of revision petition No. 294/459, Dharm Raj and others v. Bhagwaney and others , under Section 48 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, have been restored.
(3.) The facts of the case, as could be deduced from the pleadings of the record, are that on start of consolidation operation, the land in question was recorded in the name of Sheo Balak and Ram Dularey, sons of Agnoo. On publication of the notification under Section 9, an objection is said to have been preferred by one Bhagwaney, the deceased-respondent No.4 stating therein that he has one-third share in the land in dispute. The claim by late. Bhagwaney was made in the land in dispute on his assertion that he along with Sheo Balak and Ram Dularey is the third son of the original tenure holder-Agnoo. The objection raised by late Bhagwaney was decided on the basis of conciliation by the Assistant Consolidation Officer by means of order dated 03.05.1982. Against the said order dated 03.05.1982, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners on 19.02.1991 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, who dismissed the said appeal by passing an order dated 14.10.2004. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation while dismissing the appeal by means of order dated 14.10.2004 has stated the reason that the appeal was filed belatedly, however, no explanation for such delay was given. He also observed in his order that after 03.05.1982, the chaks might have been allocated and it cannot be presumed that appellants therein did not have knowledge. Appeal, thus, was dismissed only on the ground of delay and latches.;