JUDGMENT

Desai, C.J. - This is an appeal from a judgment of our brother G.C. Mathur, refusing to quash by certiorari an order passed by a Deputy Director, refusing to revise an order passed by a Settlement Officer, dismissing an appeal preferred u/s 21(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, as barred by time. Respondent No. 4 filed an objection against a statement of proposals as permitted by Section 20 and it was disposed of by a Consolidation Officer on 24-1-1963. The Appellants were not cited as parties to the objection, no notice was given to them and they were not heard before it was disposed of. The order passed by the Consolidation Officer is not very intelligible, but it has not been interpreted to involve an alteration in the chak of the Appellants. Section 21(1) lays down:

All objections....shall, as soon as may be after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed therefor....be submitted by him to the Consolidation Officer, who shall dispose of the same....in the manner hereinafter provided, after notice to the parties concerned and the Consolidation Committee.

Sub-section (2) of Section 21 lays down:

Any person aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer under Sub-section (1) may, within 21 days of the date of the order, file an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation....

An appeal from the Consolidation Officer's order dated 24-1-1963 was filed before a Settlement Officer, on 20.4.1963 i.e. more than 21 days after the date of the order of the Consolidation Officer. The Statement of Proposals was confirmed on 17.3.1963. The Settlement Officer dismissed the appeal as barred by time. Section 22(1) provides:

Any....appeal Under Sub-section (2)....of Section 21, may be admitted by the.... Settlement Officer, Consolidation.... after the period of limitation prescribed therefor under this Act if....the Appellant satisfied the authority concerned that material injustice is likely to be caused to him if the.... appeal is not admitted; anything contained in the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 or any other Law for the time being in force to the contrary notwithstanding.

This is subject to the proviso contained in Sub-section (3) (ii) of Section 22 that no appeal shall be admitted under Sub-section (1) after the statement of proposals has been confirmed u/s 23. The Settlement Officer observed that since the appeal had been filed before him after the confirmation of the statement of proposals, it could not be entertained by him u/s 22. Section 53-B lays down that:

The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act....shall apply to the appeals....under this Act.

Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act an appeal can be admitted after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed therefor if there was sufficient cause for its not having been filed before the expiry. The Settlement Officer did not say anything in his order about the existence or absence of sufficient cause for the Appellants not filing the appeal before the expiry of the period of limitation. He did not refer to the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 53 B of the Consolidation of Holdings Act in his order. It also does not appear that the Appellants contended before him that the appeal was not barred by time at all, because the notice of the alteration in the statement of proposals made on the Respondents' objection had been served upon them on 16-1-1963, and that that date was to be deemed to be the date of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. u/s 54 of the Act the State Government has the power to make rules for the purposes of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act and in particular, rules providing for the procedure and the manner relating to the preparation and publication of the statement of proposals and the confirmation thereof. Among the rules made by the State Government in exercise of this power is Rule 49 Sub-rule (1), to the effect that an Assistant Consolidation Officer receiving an objection u