- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J Feeling ag grieved by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing a revision filed under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, whereunder while setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Of ficer, Consolidation in appeal, the order of the Consolidation Officer rejecting the objection of the petitioner preferred by him under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolida tion of Holdings Act claiming to be the tenure-holder of the land in dispute has been restored, he has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the order passed by the revis ing authority.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents and have carefully perused the record. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case, lie in a narrow compass. In this case, the publication of the notice contemplated under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was made on 31-7-1967. The petitioner filed an objection on 31-8-1976 claiming Sirdari rights in the land in dispute on the assertions that he was en titled to the benefits contemplated under Section 122-B (4-F) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the requisite conditions contemplated therein having been satisfied, the revenue entry in respect of the land in dispute wherein the said land had been shown as vesting in the Gaon Sabha be corrected and instead it be recorded as his Bhumidhari holding. It may be noticed that in the village record, the land in dispute at the time when the objection had been filed was recorded as "bachat" Land vesting in the Gaon Sabha. The Consolidation Officer came to the conclusion that the publication under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was made on 31-7-1967 and the Gaon Sabha was continuing to be in possession since the year 1970 Fasali. The provisions contained in Section 122-B (4-F) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act came into effect on 30-6-1975. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the Consolidation Officer holding that on the relevant date, the petitioner was not in possession over the land in dispute rejected the objection. The petitioner had claimed that in the proceed ings under Section 122-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act initiated against him by the Gaon Sabha on 5-8-75 his possession over the land in dispute had been shown to be of a period of srxyears. The Assistant Collector while disposing of the aforesaid proceed ings had dropped the proceedings on the ground that the land in dispute stood recorded as "bachat land" during the con solidation proceedings and as such the question in regard to the accrual of the Sirdari rights put forward by the objectors on the strength of the provisions con tained in Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act could be gone into before the competent authorities under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as the proceedings under the said Act were still continuing.
(3.) THE petitioner thereafter chal lenged the order of the Consolidation Of ficer by means of an appeal which was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Of ficer Consolidation vide his order dated 19-6-1978. THE Assistant Settlement Of ficer, Consolidation held that the claim put forward by the petitioner should have been entertained under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as he was entitled to be recorded as tenure-holder of the land in dispute on account of the benefit secured in his favour under the provisions contained in Section 122-B (4-F) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. THE direction given by the appellate authority was that Raghunath, the petitioner be recorded as Sirdar under Section 122-B (4-F) and the land revenue be fixed accordingly. The appeal referred to herein-above had been allowed on 19-6-1978. A belated revision challenging the aforesaid order was filed by the Gaon Sabha alongwith an application seeking con donation of delay. The petitioner filed an objection opposing the prayer for the con donation of delay in filing the revision. The delay in filing the revision was of a period of about 3 years. The revising authority came to the conclusion that there was nothing to indicate-that the Gaon Sabha had been given any notice of the appeal and no opportunity to the Gaon Sabha of being heard before allowing the appeal had been provided. The revising authority found the ground seeking condonation of delay to be sufficient and accordingly con doned the delay in filing the revision. It was also observed that since the entire record of the case had been called for it was open to the revising authority to go into the merits of the revision irrespective of the fact as to whether there was any ir regularity in the presentation thereof by a Counsel who had not been engaged by the Gaon Sabha in accordance with the provisions contained in the Gaon Sabha Manual.;