Point of Law: Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at very threshold and cause of justice being defeated.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shailendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Mr. Prashant Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Mr. Narsingh Pandey, learned Counsel for respondent No.12.

2. Brief facts of the case are that family pedigree in order to appreciate the controversy, will be relevant which is an under :

3. The dispute pertains to old khata No.137 consisting of 16 plots total area 5 bigha, 1 biswa and 8 dhoor. Smt. Lakhpata was Zamidar/ proprietor of the land in dispute. Smt. Lakhpata transferred her entire right by registered sale deed dated 02.12.1918 in favour of Sri Ganpat Dube. It is also material that Smt.Lakhpata was Sir holder of the land in dispute. Smt. Lakhpata became ex-proprietary tenant by virtue of provisions contained under Section 10 of North Western Provinces Tenancy Act 1901 due to transfer made by Smt. Lakhpata to Sri Ganpat Dube, Smt. Lakhpata was not heard of from 1348 Fasli accordingly, Sri Ganpat Dube being Jamindar took entire property in his possession. By Virtue of Provisions contained under Section 18 of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act, Sri Ganpat Dube became bhumidhar of the land in dispute after date of vesting. After death of Sri Ganpat Dube, his two widows namely Smt. Sharda and Smt. Parmeshwara succeeded to the property and their names were accordingly mutated in the revenue record. Smt. Parmeshwara had no issue therefore, her share was succeeded by Smt. Shobha. Smt. Rajpati Devi daughter of Smt. Shobha executed a will deed in favour of Chanda Devi, who is petitioner before this Court. Under the order of Amaldaramad dated 30.10.1970 passed by Supervisor/ Kannongo, name of Lalta, Rampadarth and Ramsukh sons of Kanahaiya were ordered to be mutated as heirs of Smt. Lakhpata. Since the succession was disputed as Supervisor/ Kannungo did not have jurisdiction to record the name of Lalta, Rampadarth and Ramsukh under Section 33-A of U.P.Land Revenue Act on the basis of P.A.-11 accordingly, Smt. Rajpati filed a suit being suit No.425 under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.& L. R. Act claiming declaration for her right and title in respect to the plot in dispute stating that the order of Amaldaramad dated 30.10.1970 is out come of fraud. During the pedency of the aforesaid suit, the village was brought under consolidation operation under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act as such suit stood abated on 28.05.1979 in view of the provisions contained under Section 5 of the U.P.C.H. Act. In the Basic Year of Consolidation operation Lalta, Rampadarth and Ramsukh sons of Kanahaiya were recorded over the plots of khata No.137 New khata No.105. Against basic year entry Smt. Rajpati filed objection under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act claiming exclusive right in the pots of Khata No.105 stating that she herself is cultivating two plots and remaining 14 plots has been given on Batai cultivation. The Consolidation Officer heard the aforementioned title objection filed by Smt. Rajpti and vide order dated 19.02.1982 decided the objection against Smt. Rajpati for 14 plots and decided in her favour for two plots which were in her personal cultivation. Against the order of Consolidation officer dated 19.02.1982 Smt. Rajpati filed appeal under Section 11 of the U.P.C.H. Act on 16.08.1982 along with prayer for condonation of delay supported with affidavit of appellant. Sri Janaki and Sri Jagai also filed their separate appeals against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 19.02.1982. All the three appeals were consolidated and heard together. The appellate court vide order dated 18.03.1983 allowed all three appeals setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer. Against the appellate order dated 18.03.1983, Rampad