LAXMI KANT Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-2003-8-146
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 06,2003

LAXMI KANT Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SMT. MUNAKI DEVI AND ANOTHER V. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION,AZAMGARH AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SAJJAN KUMAR V. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION,MUZAFFARNAGAR AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KARIM VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

RAM VS. D D C , BALLIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-334] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Ashok Bhushan - (1.)-Heard Sri M. P. Sinha, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhakar Pandey learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.
(2.)BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 11th March, 2003 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order dated 17th January, 2001 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation.
Brief facts of the case as given in the writ petition are ; consolidation operation started in the village. An order was passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of compromise regarding share of the parties on 2nd October, 1988. An appeal was filed against the said order by the contesting respondents under Section 11 (1) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, application was also filed under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act by the appellants praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Objection was filed by the petitioner stating that appeal is barred by time and should be rejected. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation by order dated 17th January, 2001 condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set-aside the order of Consolidation Officer and remanded the case to Consolidation Officer for deciding the case after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Against the said order dated 17th January, 2001, revision was filed by the petitioner which has been dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 11th March, 2003.

The counsel for the petitioner challenging the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation contended that Settlement Officer of Consolidation having not condoned the delay in filing the appeal, has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits. It was contended that Settlement Officer of Consolidation could not have even considered the question of delay at the time of hearing of appeal on merit. Reliance was placed by counsel for the petitioner on judgment of this Court in Smt. Munaki Devi and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and others, 1990 RD 243.

(3.)LEARNED counsel appearing for the contesting respondents contended that Settlement Officer of Consolidation did not commit any error in deciding the question of delay as well as appeal on merit by composite order. It was further contended that Settlement Officer of Consolidation condoned the delay in filing the appeal and thereafter allowed the appeal on merit.
I have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and perused the record.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.