Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri U.N. Shrma, learned Senior Counsel as sisted by Shri Ashok Tiwari for the peti tioners and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to the dispute are as under: An objection under section 9-A (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) was filed by the petitioners claiming rights over Khata No. 186, Con solidation Officer vide order dated 30.12.1983 rejected the objection. The peti tioners went up in appeal. Assistant Set tlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 10.2.1987 allowed the appeal. It is not in dispute that the appellate order attained finality as it was not challenged. Subse quently, Joint Director of Consolidation passed an order dated 28.10.1987 directing the correction of entries in the revenue rec ord on the basis of the order dated 10.2.1987. However, since the order was not implemented in the revenue record, the petitioners moved an application under Rule 109-A of the Rules under the Act. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 22.11.2006 called for a report from the As sistant Consolidation Officer. A report dated 20.7.2007 was submitted that since the names of the Gaon Sabha and Forest Department are to be expunged, as such, permission be obtained from Collec tor/District Deputy Director of Consolidation. Thereafter, Assistant Settlement Offi cer Consolidation vide letter dated 4.2.2008 forwarded the matter to the Assistant Col lector for approval, who vide order dated 28.3.2008 refused to grant permission mainly on the ground that there is no justi fication for implementation of the order after expiry of the period of 20 years. It has been contended that merely because there was delay in moving the application under Rule 109, the same can not constitute a basis to reject the application and not to implement the order which has attained finality. I have heard the arguments ad vanced on behalf of the petitioners and pe rused the record.
(3.) ADDITIONAL Collector has refused to accord approval for implementation of the order dated 10.2.1987 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation only for the reason that the application was filed after much delay. He did not advert him self regarding the veracity and genuineness of the order. In case, the order dated 10.2.1987 has been genuinely passed, mere delay cannot be a reason not to implement the same. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, the impugned order dated 28.3.2008 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The dispute stands remit ted to the Deputy Director of Consolida tion, Maharajganj to look into the matter and pass appropriate orders for implemen tation of the order dated 10.2.1987 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolida tion in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove.;