The jurisdiction of consolidation authorities after de-notification under Section 52 of the Act, the requirement of filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the authority's power to consider matters on merits post de-notification were the central legal points established in the judgment.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

( 2 ) CHALLENGE in this petition is the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti, dated 27. 11. 2002 by which, by dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner, the order of the assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, dated 29. 5. 2002 has been maintained.

( 3 ) THERE happens to be no dispute on the facts which can be summarised thus. The Assistant consolidation Officer passed an order on 11. 10. 1997 under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the basis of reconciliation. Thereafter, de-notification under Section 52 of the Act took place on 15. 2. 1999. The petitioner filed appeal after the de-notification referred above on 16. 4. 1999. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the present petitioner that as the appeal has been filed after the de-notification under section 52 of the Act and, therefore, it is not maintainable and thus, it is liable to be dismissed as such. The application so moved by the petitioner for dismissal of the appeal being not maintainable was rejected by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Consolidation, on 29. 5. 2002 which has been affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by dismissing the revision by the judgment dated 27. 11. 2002, These two orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer, consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation are under challenge in this petition.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner raised two submissions, viz. , (i) after de-notification under section 52 of the Act, the appeal as filed by the opposite party was not to be entertained (ii) the appeal was further not to be entertained and can be heard on merit unless it is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and the delay is condoned. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions as has been given in Nanhki v. Deputy Director, Consolidation, 1995 RD 264, Kapil Dev v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1996 (2) AWC 1121 (LB) : 1996 RD 403, Smt. Munaki Devi v. Deputy Director of consolidation. 199o RD 243, Bhagwat and Ors. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1990 RD 376 and Hari Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1989 RD 281.

( 5 ) ON examination of aforesaid submissions and the cases as has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. The decision as has been given by this Court in the case of Hari Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. , 1989 RD 281, taking the view that after de-notification under Sections 52 of the Act, consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute which has been decided before issue of de-notification, has been considered and by referring other decisions of our own Court, this Court in the decision of Ramrati v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1998 (2) AWC 973 : 1998 RD 204, has held that in the decision given in the case of Hari Ram (supra), the question that whether the consolidation authorities can consider the matter on filing application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for reconsideration of the matter so decided was not considered. This Court has taken the view that as and when a party who might not be aware about the decision so taken by the consolidation authorities or any proceeding taken therein, on coming to know moves to the consolidation authorities by giving proper explanation for delay, the consolidation authorities can consider the matter and after if it is found that the explanation for delay is sufficient, the matter may be considered on merits. Similar view has been again taken by this Court in Bechan Ali v. Deputy director of Consolidation, 2001 (1) AWC 1003 : 2001 RD 317. In view of the aforesaid, the decisions referred by the learned counsel for petitioner are of no help to the submi