Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioners have presented this writ petition assailing the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer on 13.2.1974, Settlement Officer Consolidation on 16.7.2008 and the Revisional Order dated 30.9.2009 passed by Deputy Director of Consoliation, Ghazipur.
(3.) It appears from the record that on the basis of a compromise, the C.O. had defined the share of legal heirs of Late Manga Singh, original tenure holder and other parties. In place of Manga Singh name of Vishavanath Singh and Ramji Singh was recorded. In the year 1974, name of Ram Nagina Singh S/O Ram Prasad Singh, Baij Nath Singh S/O Ramkesh Singh were recorded as cotenure holders. This order had become final and entries were made in the revenue records. The petitioners after a long delay of 31 years and a month filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, challenging the order passed by C.O. on 13.2.1974. The only reason was given in the application seeking condonation of delay that the petitioners are illiterate persons and were working in Army. The SOC has touched the merits of the case as well as taken into account the aforesaid delay and has rejected the appeal. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also affirmed the order passed by SOC. A perusal of the order reveals that the appeal itself was hopelessly barred by limitation. No cogent reason have been given in the application seeking condonation of delay as to what had prevented the petitioners in not coming the court during a long period of 31 years and a month. Even if, they were in Army, annual leaves was allowed to Jawans. The court has also taken note that the SOC has recorded the finding of fact that the petitioner Ramji had personally appeared before the court of Consolidation Officer on 13.2.1974. Vishwanath Singh had also appeared in person before the SOC. Ram Nagina and Baij Nath had also signed the compromise. Thus, there is nothing on record to demolish this finding of fact. The C.O. has also recorded that the said 'Sulahnama' was removed from the Consolidation files, thereafter, fresh grounds have been fabricated and manufactured with ulterior motive to give a different turn to the matter. The petitioners ought not to have been advised by his counsel to file this writ petition, which had already been dealt with at two stages i.e. Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur.;