- (1.) There was dispute between the Petitioners and Sri Ezazuddin in respect of plot No. 424. The matter was contested up to the revisional stage hut the entry of the Petitioners as Sirdar in the basic year over this plot was maintained. Subsequently an objection was filed on behalf of the State Govt. through the District Government Counsel (Revenue) that the name of the Petitioners be deleted as Sirdars from plot No. 424, as that plot was a tank. This objection was filed on 4-8-1971 by which time the time for filing objection under Section 9 had run out. The ground given for condonation of delay was that the State Government came to know of the wrong entry on the report of the D.G.C. (Revenue) and as such could not file an objection. The Consolidation Officer found that the D.G.C. (Revenue) who was alleged to have submitted the report, was the son of Ezazuddin who had earlier contested the case on similar grounds but had lost. In view of this, he held that as the revision filed by Ezazuddin had been dismissed on 22-10-1970, the D.G.C. (Revenue) had knowledge of the proceedings much earlier to the filing of the objections. He however, taking the view that as the matter related to the Gram Samaj, condoned the delay. The ground given by the Consolidation Officer for condoning the delay is puerile. All litigants are equal before a Court law, and no special consideration can be given for condonation of delay to any litigant. Thus, the Consolidation Officer committed a grave error of law in condoning the delay on the ground that it related to the rights of the Gram Samaj. In fact he should have rejected the application after having found that the objector had knowledge of the proceedings much earlier.
(2.) The Deputy Director Consolidation dismissed the revision of the Petitioners on the ground that even though the District Govt. Counsel (Revenue) might have come to know of the decision earlier in his individual capacity, the State Government became apprised of the matter only after a report was submitted by him. Reason-jog given by the Deputy Director Consolidation omits to take into accounts the fact that the delay in filing objections has to be counted from the date of publication of records under Section 9, and not from the date when the revision of a private party in respect of the land which is alleged to be public land is dismissed. In the affidavit filed in support of the objections no ground whatsoever has been disclosed for not filing the objection, soon after the publication of the records under Section 9, in which the Petitioners were shown as Sirdars. Both the authorities have committed a manifest error of law in condoning the delay.
(3.) The petition is accordingly allowed. Orders of the Consolidation Officer and that of the Deputy Director Consolidation are quashed. Cost on parties. Stay order is discharged.;