Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 830 (ALL)

RAM SARAN v. ASSTT. D. D. C.

2018-04-05

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Salil Kumar Rai, J. Heard Shri Hari Ram Pandey holding brief of Shri Satya Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 as well as learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No. 1. 2. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are brothers. During the consolidation operations in the Village, the petitioner filed objections under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') against the settlement of Chak as made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The aforesaid objection of the petitioner was time barred, and therefore, alongwith the objections, the petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay in filing the said objections. The reasons given by the petitioner in his affidavit and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was that the petitioner was an old person and was suffering from urinary problems and cancer for the last many years and therefore had no knowledge about the arrangement of Chaks as proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Authorities. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 31.10.1990 allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay in filing the objections and consequently directed to register the case of the petitioner and fixed the said case for hearing. Against the order dated 31.10.1990 passed by the Consolidation Officer, respondent No. 2 filed a Revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953, which was registered as Revision No. 43/1990-91 before respondent No. 1-Assistant Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mathura. The respondent No. 1 vide his order dated 14.11.1991 allowed the aforesaid Revision and set aside the order dated 31.10.1990 passed by the Consolidation Officer. The reasons given by respondent No. 1 in his order dated 14.11.1991 was that, the claim of the petitioner that he had no knowledge about the arrangements as made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer because he was old and was suffering from urinary problems and other diseases for many years, was not believable as during the relevant time the petitioner had appeared and contested some other case relating to the same Village. While passing the order dated 14.11.1991, the respondent No. 1 has also referred to the medical prescriptions submitted by the petitioner, which according to respondent No. 1 were dated subsequent to the orders passed in the previous case, wherein ostensibly the petitioner had appeared and contested. The order dated 14.11.1991 has been challenged in the present writ petition. 3. Considered the matter. 4. The order dated 31.10.1990 passed by the Consolidation Officer shows that the said order was passed by the Consolidation Officer condoning the delay in filing the objections filed by the petitioner on the ground that the delay was satisfactorily explained by the petitioner and the said finding was recorded by the Consolidation Officer after considering the evidence filed by the petitioner establishing his illness and consequently reasons for not filing the objections earlier. Apart from above the Consolidation Officer also condoned the delay in filing the objections on the ground that allotment of Chaks in the Village had still not been finalized and objections of many tenure holders were still pending before the Consolidation officer and therefore, proceedings regarding allotment of Chaks in the Village would not be hampered or obstructed, if the objections of the petitioner were also heard on merits. There is no illegality or irregularity in the said findings of the Consolidation Officer so as to have occasioned interference by respondent No. 1 under Section 48 of the Act. Apart from the above, in his order dated 14.11.1991, respondent No. 1 has not adverted to the aforesaid reasoning given by the Consolidation Officer and has not reversed the same. In Shanti Prasad Gupta v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Camp At Meerut and Others, 1981 (Supp) SCC 73, it was held :- "...Whether or not there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay, is a question of fact dependent upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case, and the proposition is wellsettled that when order has been made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the lower court in the exercise of its discretion allowing or refusing an application to extend time, it cannot be interfered with in revision, unless the lower court has acted with material irregularity or contrary to law or has come to that conclusion on no evidence. We are aware that the powers of the Director under Section 48 of the Act are wider than those mentioned in section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even so, the Director cannot lightly interfere with the discretion of the Consolidation Officer, unless the order sought to be revised is clearly erroneous or is likely to cause gross miscarriage of justice..." (Emphasis added) 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 14.11.1991 passed by respondent No. 1 is contrary to law and is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the objections of the petitioner on merits within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him by either of the parties.