The court emphasized the importance of full disclosure of material facts and the conduct of the petitioner in justifying the rejection of delay condonation.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. –

Supplementary counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri R.C. Singh for the petitioner and Sri A.N. Srivastava for the contesting respondents.

3. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of CO dated 12.8.2002 and DDC dated 13.3.2006, by which delay condonation application of the petitioner filed along with the objection u/s 9 of the Act has been rejected and objection was dismissed as time barred and revision has been dismissed.

4. Rama was co-sharer in plot nos. 331 and 357. It is alleged that Rama executed a sale deed dated 19.1.1976 in respect of his share in the aforesaid plots, in favour of Smt. Matuna Devi , respondent-4. On the basis of sale deed dated 19.1.1976, name of Smt. Matuna Devi was mutated over the land in dispute by order of Tahsildar dated 22.2.1977, passed in Case No. 2682. In basic consolidation year, khata no. 95 was carved out of the aforesaid two plot nos. 331 and 357, in which, names of other co-sharers of Rama along with Smt. Matuna Devi were recorded. The village was notified u/s 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on 2.3.1995. The petitioner did not file any objection for recording his name and the dispute relating to division of the shares of various co-sharers in joint khata of the petitioner, has been decided by order of Co dated 24.2.1997, passed in Case No. 463/99. The share of Smt. Matuna Devi, transferee of the petitioner in the aforesaid plots, was held as 1/6. Thereafter, a highly time barred objection was filed by the petitioner on 21.11.2001, along with delay condonation application. The petitioner has stated in the objection that he has not executed any sale deed in favour of Smt. Matuna Devi and her name is recorded in the revenue record by making forgery. It is only on 21.11.2001, he came to know about the forged entry of the name of Smt. Matuna Devi through Lekhpal. Prior to it, he never knew about the entry of the name of Smt. Matuna Devi over the land in dispute. The delay condonation application was contested by the respondents before the CO and they filed their objections in it. The parties have filed their affidavits as well as counter affidavit in support of their objections and counter objections. The CO by order dated 12.8.2002 found that Rama, the petitioner executed two sale deeds, i.e. first sale deed was executed by him on 19.1.1976 and the second sale deed was executed by him on 1.2.1977 and in both these sale deeds, he had made his signatures, but he had put his thumb impression in the objection as well as affidavit deliberately. Sale deed dated 1.2.1977 was not challenged by Rama. So far as sale deed dated 19.1.1976 is concerned, Rama has signed, denoting as "in his own pen and writing". On the basis of sale deed, name of Smt. Matuna Devi was mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, the objection was filed with a delay of about six years nine months. There is no explanation of the inordinate delay, although, in the meantime, CH Form 5 and CH Form 23 were distributed in the village and there is no reason for Rama for not coming to know about the consolidation proceeding. On this finding, he dismissed the delay condonation application, as well as objection as time barred. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in revision before DDC. The revision was heard by DDC, who by the order dated 13.3.2006, found that the joint holding of the co-sharers were divided by the order of CO dated 24.2.1997, passed in Case No. 463/994. Thereafter, chaks were carved out in the village. The objection was filed after about six years thereafter. So far as sale deed dated 19.1.1976 is concerned, name of the transferee on its basis has already been mutated in the revenue record by the order of SDO dated 22.2.1977. The petitioner has not challenged the sale deed from 1976 to 2001. Thus, there was no reason for condoning the delay. On this finding, he dismissed the revision. Hence, this writ petition has been file