Section 11-C of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act allows for the protection of the Gaon Sabha's interest in cases where no appeal could have been filed on its behalf.

B.L. Yadav, J.

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against the order dated 31-3-84 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad in a revision u/s 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act filed by Hira Lal, Respondent No. 3 against an order dated 23-4-82 refusing to condone the delay in his appeal pertaining to a land which has vested in the Gaon Sabha. The facts of the case are that admittedly the land has vested in the Gaon Sabha, as has been held by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Appeal was filed by Respondent No. 3. He was neither a member of the Land Management Committee nor he was Pradhan or Up Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha.

2. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Respondent No. 3 has got no authority to file the appeal. The appeal was also held to be time-barred. It was also urged that: Respondent No. 3 Hira Lal is neither a Member of the Gaon Sabha noir Pradhan or Up Pradhan. Therefore, he could not file an appeal on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, Consequently, the appeal or the revision filed by him was not maintainable. Hence the same has been incorrectly allowed. The learned Counsel has relied on the case of Sita Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation 1982 ALJ 76. In that case the controversy was about the cancellation of the lease-deed granted by the Gaon Sabha and the controversy was considered during the consolidation operations, hence the main point for consideration was whether the Consolidation authorities can adjudicate upon the validity of the deed. Undoubtedly it was held that unless any body has been authorised to file objection on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, in view of Paras 125 and 131 of the Oaon Sabha Manual, he cannot file objection. But in the instant case admittedly the land has vested in the Gaon Sabha, hence for protection of the land that has vested in the Gaon Sabha the Legislature was conscious in enacting Section 11-C of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. This section has been inserted by U.P. Act No. 34 of 1974. The statutory provisions of Section 11-C of the Act are reproduced below for the sake of convenience:

11-C. In the course of hearing of an objection u/s 9-A or an appeal u/s 11 or in proceedings u/s 48, the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Director of Consolidation, as the case may be, may direct that any land which vests in the State Government or the Gaon Sabha or any other local body or authority may be recorded in its name even though no objection, appeal or revision has been filed by such Government, Gaon Sabha, body or authority.

3. In view of the aforesaid section it is clear that even though in respect of the land of the Gaon Sabha no objection, appeal or revision could have been filed the Court can protect the interest of the Gaon Sabha in oase it has been found that the land has actually vested in the Gaon Sabha. It is thus abundantly clear that even though no appeal could have been filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, nor the revision could have been preferred, the interest of the Gaon Sabha could have been protected. In this view of the matter, with profound respect to the view taken in the case of Sita Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (Supra) the case is not indistinguishable.

4. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in treating the revision to be within time and directing the case to be decided by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is perfectly correct and substantial justice has been done by remanding the case so that the appeal may be decided on merits.

5. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore, the impugned order is perfectly correct and does not call for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. In the result, the petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.