K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the orders of the consolidation authorities the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The petitioners' prayer for condonation of delay in preferring objection under Section 9 of the U.P.C.H. Act has been rejected by the consolidation authorities through the impugned judgments.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the Parties and I have gone through the impugned judgments. It is well known by now that during the consolidation operations, title of a tenure holder is decided for good and according to the decisions of this Court as well as the highest Court liberal view should be taken on the question of limitation. In the present case an affidavit had been filed to explain the delay in preferring the objection. No counter affidavit had been filed. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has tried to support the impugned judgments as the reasoning given in the impugned judgments. It has been strongly submitted that the petitioner knew about the proceedings, therefore, the delay in preferring the objection was rightly not condoned by the consolidation authorities. To my mind, the consolidation authorities have acted illegally and perversely in not condoning the delay specially when no counter affidavit was filed, against the affidavit by the petitioner in support of the application for condoning the delay. Since the consolidation authorities have acted unreasonably in the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, their judgments deserve to be quashed. It is in the interest of justice that the petitioners' claim should be decided on merits after affording reasonable opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.;