Salil Kumar Rai, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Hari Ram Pandey holding brief of Shri Satya Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 as well as learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No. 1.
(2.) The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are brothers. During the consolidation operations in the Village, the petitioner filed objections under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') against the settlement of Chak as made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The aforesaid objection of the petitioner was time barred, and therefore, alongwith the objections, the petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay in filing the said objections. The reasons given by the petitioner in his affidavit and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was that the petitioner was an old person and was suffering from urinary problems and cancer for the last many years and therefore had no knowledge about the arrangement of Chaks as proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Authorities. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 31.10.1990 allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay in filing the objections and consequently directed to register the case of the petitioner and fixed the said case for hearing. Against the order dated 31.10.1990 passed by the Consolidation Officer, respondent No. 2 filed a Revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953, which was registered as Revision No. 43/1990-91 before respondent No. 1-Assistant Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mathura. The respondent No. 1 vide his order dated 14.11.1991 allowed the aforesaid Revision and set aside the order dated 31.10.1990 passed by the Consolidation Officer. The reasons given by respondent No. 1 in his order dated 14.11.1991 was that, the claim of the petitioner that he had no knowledge about the arrangements as made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer because he was old and was suffering from urinary problems and other diseases for many years, was not believable as during the relevant time the petitioner had appeared and contested some other case relating to the same Village. While passing the order dated 14.11.1991, the respondent No. 1 has also referred to the medical prescriptions submitted by the petitioner, which according to respondent No. 1 were dated subsequent to the orders passed in the previous case, wherein ostensibly the petitioner had appeared and contested. The order dated 14.11.1991 has been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) Considered the matter.;