VIKRAM NATH, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Namwar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel represent­ing the Gaon Sabha (respondent Nos. 3 and 4) and the learned Standing Counsel repre­senting the respondents.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 5.1.1979 and the order dated 24.10.1979 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad dismissing the revision of the petitioner. The petitioner applied on 17.2.1976 for exchange of its Bhumidhari and with the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha. A report was called for. The Gaon Sabha also passed a resolution on 24.2.1976, agreeing to the proposal of the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghaziabad vide order dated 4.11.1976 al­lowed the exchange under the provisions of section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act No. 1 of 1951). The Sub-Divisional Qfficer recorded specific finding that valuation of both the land sought to be exchanged was the same. It was further recorded that the land of Gaon Sabha was already in illegal possession of certain persons, which was being sought to be taken by the petitioner. This order of the Sub-Divisional Officer allowing the ex­change became final as no appeal or revi­sion was filed by any of the parties. Subsequently, it appears that an application was filed by new Pradhan be­fore the Consolidation Officer that the ex­change has been effected during the pen­dency of the consolidation proceedings and, therefore, was void. This application was filed on the ground that no permission had been taken under section 5(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act) and further that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to allow such exchange in view of the fact that consolidation operation had commenced and, therefore, any proceeding which was pending was liable to be abated and no new application could have been filed after the notification under section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act had been issued. It also took an objection that exchange could have been permitted only by the Consolidation Authorities under section 53 of the U.P.C.H. Act. On the said application the Consolidation Officer referred the matter to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who vide order dated 5.1.1979 allowed the same and directed that the possession as existed prior to the order of exchange be restored. The petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Con­solidation by the impugned order against which the present writ petition was filed in the year 1979 and an interim order was granted on 6.9.1979. The effect is that for the last more than 32 years the exchange as directed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 4.11.1976 has continued and the parties have been in possession of the land as per the exchange order.
(3.) SRI Namwar Singh, learned Coun­sel appearing for the petitioner has submit­ted that the Deputy Director of Consolida­tion dismissed the revision of the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly, that the Sub-Divisional Officer has no authority to pass order of exchange with regard to the land which fell within the Consolidation opera­tions and secondly the revision was barred by time as sufficient explanation had not been given to condone the delay. He has further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed an error firstly in holding that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction inasmuch as under the U.P.C.H. Act there was no specific provi­sion permitting the exchange. Section 53 of the U.P.C.H. Act had no application to ex­change of land as it only related to chak and not to any holding. Second submission is that the delay had been duly explained. Even otherwise it is well settled that the rights of the parties should be adjudicated on merits rather than to scuttle on techni­calities.;