ORDER :- The points raised in this petition and in the other connected petitions are the same. They are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The dispute relates to a land situate in village Dhimarpur, Tehsil Powayan, District Shahjahanpur. It appears that the land was recorded sometime back in the name of Satya Jeet Singh and Padamjeet Singh. Proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act took place and the land was declared as surplus. Thereafter the petitioner in the present petition filed objections under Section 14 of the Act, claiming rights in the surplus land. These petitions were dismissed by the prescribed authority as also by the appellate authority. A writ petition filed against that decision was also dismissed. The matter is now pending in this Court by way of a petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

3. In the year 1969, the village was brought under consolidation operations.

The petitioners have averred that in the records prepared by the Consolidation authorities, they were shown as tenure-holders of the disputed land and notices in C. H. Form 5 were also issued showing them as tenure-holders. No objections were filed within the tune (prescribed under Section 9 (2) of the Act Subsequently, an objection was filed on 10-2-1970, by the Additional Collector Shahjahanpur, stating therein that the land had been declared as surplus in proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act and had vested in the State of U. P. and that the objections could not be filed within the time prescribed under S. 9 (2) of the Act, and as the fact that the names of the erstwhile tenure-holders continued to be recorded in the revenue papers, came to the knowledge of the authorities on 8-2-1970 the delay in filing the objections be condoned. This application was not supported by an affidavit Replies were filed to this by the petitioners supported by an affidavit, wherein, it was alleged inter alia that the decision in the U. P. Imposition of the Ceiling of Land Holdings Act had not become final and the matter is pending in the High Court, and further that the papers relating to the consolidation cases had been examined as far back as 25-10-1969 as also on 8-2-1970, which went to show that the State had knowledge of these proceedings much earlier. It was also asserted that a letter was sent in the first week of January 1970 by the Consolidation Officer to the Ceiling Officer giving information of the consolidation proceedings and inviting them to objections against the proposed entries. A true copy of the alleged letter has been filed as Annexure 12 to the petition. The State filed a counter-affidavit to the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners in Section 5 proceedings. In paragraph 9 of this affidavit, it was asserted that although the land in dispute had been declared as surplus land by the prescribed authority of Sitapur the entries in the record had not been corrected in pursuance of these orders, and the mistake came to the knowledge of the State when the Additional Collector (Executive) made investigation for the first time on 8-2-1970, a stand was also taken up that the period of limitation should count from the date of knowledge and in any event the delay should be condoned. The Consolidation Officer found that although objections had been filed by the State on behalf of the Gaon Samaj in some case on 25-10-1969, yet it could not be said that the State had knowledge of the entries in the present case before 8-2-1970. Taking into account the decision under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, he took the view that in case the delay in filing the objections was not condoned, it would amount to setting at naught the judgment given by these authorities. He also expressed the suspicion that the delay in correcting the revenue records, subsequent to the decision of ceiling authorities, might have been due to machinations of the tenure-holders concerned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document