SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shiv Sagar, Advocate, holding brief of shri Sant Ram Sharma, Advocate, representing respondent No. 4.
(2.) Against the order dated 18.4.2006 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Banda, i.e., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.') dismissing the appeal filed by the father of the petitioner, the petitioner filed recall/restoration application on 21.3.2017 praying that the order dated 18.4.2006 be recalled and the appeal be heard on merits. As the recall/restoration application was time barred, a delay condonation application was also filed praying to condone the delay in filing the recall/restoration application. The S.O.C. vide his order dated 19.9.2018 dismissed the delay condonation application and consequently the recall application. The order dated 19.9.2018 passed by the S.O.C. has been affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda, i.e., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.') vide his order dated 22.2.2019 passed in Revision No. 94 registered under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'). The orders dated 22.2.2019 and 19.9.2018 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the orders passed by the consolidation authorities are contrary to law inasmuch as the restoration application filed by the petitioner was dismissed without recording any finding that the petitioner had any knowledge about the dates fixed in the hearing of the appeal or any knowledge about the final order passed in the appeal whereby the appeal was dismissed in default. It was further argued by the counsel for the petitioner that as the appeal was filed under Section 11 of the Act, 1953 and the issue related to the title of the petitioner over the disputed plots, therefore, it was appropriate in the interest of justice that the restoration application should have been allowed and the appeal should have been heard on merits ignoring the delay in filing the restoration application. In support of his contention, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgements reported in Mahabir Singh Vs. Subhash and Others (2008), 1 SCC 358, Jeet Narain and Another Vs. Govind Prasad and Others, 2010 (110) RD 374 and Yogendra Ram Tripathi and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and Others, 2013 (119) RD 36.;