Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—

Heard Sri R.K.Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Trivedi who is for the contesting respondent no.2.

2. This matter is being disposed of finally at this stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and learned standing counsel as well as the learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent nos. 4,5,6 and 9. The other respondents need not be heard at this stage inasmuch as the short issue involved in this petition is about a 26 year time barred objection under section 9A(2) of the U.P.c.H.Act, 1953 filed by the respondent no.2 Rafiqan represented by Sri Trivedi.

3. The short facts given rise to this writ petition are that the respondent no.2 was not even recorded in the basic year when the consolidation operations commenced. It was the name of the petitioner that was recorded in the basic year record and was ultimately maintained as such in his favour. However, before the village could be denotified under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act,1953 the respondent no.2 filed an objection under Section 9-A-2 alleging that the name of her father Rakha ought to be recorded as per the pedigree admitted to her and indicated in her objection in para 7 thereof. She alleged that she is the married daughter of late Rakha and her name should be substituted in his place.This objection along with a delay application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed on 4.3.2005.

4. The village had been notified for consolidation operation in the year 1979. The objection therefore was after 26 years. The objection was rejected as being time barred and also recording a finding on merit that since 1359 fasli the name of the petitioner's father Fateh Mohammad was recorded. as the sole tenure holder. The respondent no.2 alleged that this was an out come of a fraud and therefore objections should be allowed. She also alleged that she came to know that the petitioner, who is the son of Fateh Mohammad started disposing of the property.

5. The Consolidation Officer disbelieved the said plea of delay, and also on merit rejected her objections. She filed a revision straight away under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H.Act without filing any appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation.

6. The said revision was entertained and the Deputy Director of Consolidation after having discussed the entire claim of the respondent no.2 on merits allowed her revision observing that since consolidation proceedings are still proceeding, the rights of the parties would stand finalised for all times to come and therefore it would be appropriate to condone the delay of 26 year. The revision was allowed and directions were issued to the Consolidation Officer to decide the case on merits.

7. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is under challenge before this Court contending that the impugned order dated 26.3.2008 has been passed without discussing the ingredients of the condonation of delay which was required in this case keeping in view the 26 years of long delay.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri R.K.Yadav has relied on the judgment in Priambada Vs. D.D.C reported in 2011 RD 126 to urge that such an attitude of recklessly on condoning delay without recording a finding cannot stand the scrutiny of law. He contends that even otherwise the respondent no.2 cannot succeed to the holding of late Rakha as it was an ancestral holding.

9. Sri S.K.Srivastava Advocate had been heard and this writ petition was admitted on 25.4.2011 and the interim order dated 15.4.2008 was confirmed.Subsequently Sri Trivedi has put in appearance and moved an application urging that the interim order deserves to be modified and he prays that the petitioner should be restrained from alienating or transferring the property in dispute during the pendency of the writ petition.

10. Sri Trivedi contends that the delay has been rightly condoned inasmuch as the order of the Consolidation Officer if allowed to stand would rais

Click Here to Read the rest of this document