Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1781 (ALL)

Harish Chandra Pandey v. Chief Revenue Officer

2018-08-13

RAJIV JOSHI

body2018
JUDGMENT : RAJIV JOSHI, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. 3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 8.3.2018 passed by Chief Revenue Officer, Basti, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Section 48 (1) U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 was dismissed and the order dated 26.6.2015 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was affirmed, whereby the delay was condoned in filing of the appeal. 4. The record reflects that name of Ramanand was recorded in the revenue record. The petitioner for expunging the name of Jagannath son of Ramanand filed objection under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. The objection was decided on the basis of compromise by the Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 7.1.1976. Against the said order, appeal was filed by respondent nos. 3 to 6 along with an application for condonation of delay on 14.3.1988. The ground taken is that compromise was never acted upon and the concerned respondents were not the parties in the compromise and they came to know about the order after the Form 23 was distributed to the respondent nos. 3 to 6.? 5. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 23.4.1990 condone the delay in filing of the appeal. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of revision and the matter was remanded to the Settlement Officer Consolidation for deciding the delay condonation application afresh. Again the delay was condoned by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 26.6.2015. Against that order, revision was filed, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 8.3.2018. The order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 26.6.2015 as well as the order dated 8.3.2018 are impugned in the writ petition. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that compromise between the parties has been acted upon and the case set up by the contesting respondents that they came to know about the said order after the Form 23 was distributed is totally incorrect as the compromise order dated 7.1.1976 has already been implemented, respondents have the knowledge about the said order. 7. I have considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 8. 7. I have considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 8. Specific finding has been recorded by both the consolidation authorities by condoning the delay that contesting respondents were not party in the compromise and the said order was ex parte order and the interest of the contesting respondents were affected by the same order. The delay has been explained to the effect that they came to know about the said order, when Form 23 was distributed amongst the villagers. In these circumstances, the delay was condoned. 9. I have gone through the judgment of both the authorities and find that no illegality has been committed by both the authorities while allowing the delay condonation application. 10. Writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.