- (1.) Heard Sri Vishnu Singh, the counsel for the petitioners, and the counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The plots in dispute between the petitioner and respondent nos. 4 to 22 are Plot Nos. 25-Ka, 25-Kha and Plot No. 33 whose corresponding old numbers were 139 and 140/1.
(3.) The facts relevant to decide the present writ petition are that the contesting respondents were recorded in the basic year records. It is alleged by the petitioners that during the consolidation operations in the village, objections were filed by them under Section 9-A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') registering Case No. 2294 before the Consolidation Officer which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 27.7.1971 and the petitioners were held to be the tenure holders of the disputed plots. It is also alleged by the petitioners that the order dated 27.7.1971 was challenged by the contesting respondents in Revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the said revision was dismissed vide order dated 27.11.1975 and the review application filed by the respondents was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 26.6.1978. It is further alleged that the order dated 27.7.1971 was incorporated in C.H. Form-23 prepared during the consolidation operations but petitioners were not recorded in C.H. Form-45 and the contesting respondents were recorded as tenure holders of the disputed plots in C.H. Form-45. In 1985, the petitioners filed an application under Section 52(2) of the Act, 1953 registering Case No. 613 before the Consolidation Officer praying that the petitioners be recorded in C.H. Form-45 on the basis of order dated 27.7.1971. The said application was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 1.9.1986. The application filed by the petitioners registering Case No. 613 before the Consolidation Officer was necessitated because in the meantime a notification under Section 52(1) of the Act, 1953 was published in the official gazette and the village ceased to be under consolidation operations. It is also pertinent to note that in 1978, the consolidation records of the village were destroyed due to fire in the record room. When the contesting respondents came to know about the order dated 1.9.1986, they filed Appeal Nos. 184/148 and 185 against the alleged order dated 27.7.1971 and the order dated 1.9.1986 passed by the Consolidation Officer. The said appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.') under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1953 and were filed in 1990 along with an application praying to condone the delay in filing the appeals. In their appeals, the contesting respondents pleaded that the order dated 1.9.1986 was passed without issuing any notice to the contesting respondents and further the order dated 27.7.1971 had never been passed by the Consolidation Officer and no Case No. 2294 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 was ever registered against the contesting respondents regarding the disputed plots. It was alleged that the order dated 27.7.1971 was fraudulently transcribed on C.H. Form-23 and C.H. Form-23 had been forged by the petitioners. The petitioners filed their objections to the delay condonation application filed by the contesting respondents. From the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners had filed certain documents before the S.O.C. in support of their claim that the contesting respondents had knowledge of the order dated 27.7.1971 much before the date of filing the appeals and therefore the delay in filing the appeals was not liable to be condoned as the delay was not satisfactorily explained and the contesting respondents had been sleeping over their rights. A perusal of the supplementary affidavit also shows that before the S.O.C., the petitioners had also filed documents in support of their plea that the contesting respondents had already challenged the order dated 27.7.1971 in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.') and a review application had also been filed by the contesting respondents before the D.D.C. and the revision and review filed by the respondents had been dismissed by the D.D.C. The S.O.C. vide his order dated 7.10.1993 allowed the application filed by the contesting respondents praying to condone the delay in filing the appeals and proceeded to hear the appeals on merits. The order dated 7.10.1993 was passed by the S.O.C. on the ground that as the petitioners had themselves been granted relief in 1986, i.e., almost fifteen years after the order dated 27.7.1971 had been passed, therefore, it was a fit case where the respondents who were the recorded tenure holders of the disputed plots in the basic year records be also heard on merits against the alleged order dated 27.7.1971. Aggrieved by the order dated 7.10.1993 passed by the S.O.C., the petitioners filed Revision Nos. 42 of 1993 and 41 of 1993 before the D.D.C. which have been dismissed by the D.D.C. vide his order dated 3.8.1998. The orders dated 7.10.1993 and 3.8.1998 have been challenged in the present writ petition.;