The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of statutory provisions and legal precedents to determine the maintainability of the appeal and the rights of the villagers for passage over the Gaon Sabha land, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding public rights and ensuring compliance with statutory conditions.

JANARDAN SAHAI, J.

1. The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. Plot No. 991 was recorded as banjar land of the Gaon Sabha. Brijendra Singh the Petitioner's father filed an application before the Consolidation Officer alleging that this plot lies in the midst of his plots and therefore after determining its valuation it may be allotted in his chak. The Consolidation Officer accepted his prayer and made the allotment on 16.4.1989. According to the Respondent No. 4 the Gram Sabha and the Respondent No. 5, Badley Singh, the inhabitants of the village had a right of passage over the said plot No. 991 but the Petitioner's father who happened to be the Pradhan of the village and also the Chairman of the Consolidation Committee misused his position and got the valuation of this plot of the Gaon Sabha fixed at 40 paisa only in contrast to the valuation of 100 paisa of the adjoining plots. He then obtained its allotment to himself. This fraud was not noticed by the inhabitants until the Petitioner recently started making constructions over the plot, blocking the passage. The Respondent No. 5 Badley Singh then rushed to the Consolidation Officer and filed objections u/s 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on 28.2.2001 claiming a right of passage of the inhabitants of the village over the plot. In the circumstances, the objections were delayed. The Consolidation Officer by his order, dated 30.5.2002 condoned the delay. On merits the objections are still pending adjudication before the Consolidation Officer. The appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by the Petitioner was dismissed on 25.11.2002 and the revision too was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 16.1.2003 giving rise to Writ Petition No. 5083 of 2003. In addition to the objections, the Respondent No. 5 also preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation directly against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 16.4.1989. In the appeal too a prayer for condoning the delay was made. The appeals were allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by his order dated 25.11.2002. Revision by the Petitioner was unsuccessful and was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 16.1.2003. These orders are the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 5082 of 2003. Both the writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts and are being decided by a common judgment.

2. I have heard Sri. G.N. Verma, counsel for the Petitioner and Sri. S.N. Singh counsel for the Respondent.

3. A wide range of submissions have been made by Sri. G.N. Verma counsel for the Petitioner. It is contended that the appeal filed by the Respondent No. 5 Badley Singh was not maintainable firstly because an appeal can be filed only by a party and the Respondent No. 5 was not a party before the Consolidation Officer and secondly because he is also not aggrieved because the order of the Consolidation Officer, dated 16.4.1989 brought about a change of the valuation of the plot of the Gaon Sabha with which the Respondent No. 5 has no concern. He relied upon certain authorities. They are: Smt. Sukhjinder Jeet Kaur and Others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, (2003) 2 AWC 943, Radhey Shyam vs. Kamla Shanker and Others, 2003 (94) RD 227 and Bala Prasad vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Banda and Others, 2003 (94) RD 405. It has been held in these decision that u/s 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act it is only a party who can prefer an appeal. The decisions cited really have no application to this case. The appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 16.4.1989 was filed u/s 9B(3) of the Act. That provision does not confine the right of appeal to a party. Rather the remedy is made available to a "person aggrieved.". Section 9B(3) of the Act provides for appeal against the statement of principles. In the appeal the Respondent Badley Singh did not challenge any provision for reservation of lan