- (1.) S. K. Singh, J. Heard Sri Shukla, learned Advocate in support of this petition and Sri Tripathi, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondent.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this petition is the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. There is no dispute about certain facts and thus on brief notice writ petition is to be conveniently disposed of. At the start of the consolidation, order was passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of some reconciliation. On coming to know after long delay, appeal was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed on two grounds (i) on the ground of limitation and (ii) it is filed after denotification under section 52 of U. P. C. H. Act. Revision filed by the petitioner has also dismissed and thus writ petition.
(3.) SUBMISSION of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has no notice about proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the compromise was result of fraud and was not in accordance with law and as and when petitioner came to know about that order he filed appeal and therefore, that was wrongly dismissed and at the same time revisional Court gave finding that both orders passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of reconciliation is not in accordance with law but maintained the order on account of delay and section 52 denotification, which on the fact cannot be said to be justified. In response to the aforesaid, Sri Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that appeal was highly belated and therefore, if both Courts have dismissed the same then no exception can be taken to it.;