IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that excessive delay in filing title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act cannot be condoned, especially when the petitioner was aware of the proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr Zeeshan Khan holding brief of Mr Mohd Aadil, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prem Chandra Maurya, holding brief of Mr. Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/3 and Mr B.N.Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Khata No- 306, 307, 49 situated in village Jai Singh Pura, Pargana-Mathura, District-Mathura was recorded in the name of respondent No-3 Triloki Nath and respondent No. 5 Kalicharan. The village in question was notified under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 herein after referred to as U.P.C.H. Act in the year 1975. Petitioner filed a time barred objection under Section-9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act on 10.1.1983 alongwith prayer of condonation of delay of about 7 year which was registered as Case No. 86 before Consolidation Officer, Baldeo, Mathura. The delay condonation matter in the aforementioned objection was heard and Consolidation Officer vide order dated 9.9.1983 granted benefit of Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act in filing objection Under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act on Cost of Rs 30 and fixed 17.9. 1983 for framing of issues and evidence. Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 filed a revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before revisional Court against the order dated 9.9.1983 granting benefit of Section-5 of Indian Limitation Act which was registered as Revision No- 460/579 before Assistant Director of Consolidation Mathura. The aforementioned revision was heard finally by Assistant Director of Consolidation who vide order dated dated 29.11.1984 allowed the revision, setting aside the order dated 9.9.1983 and sent the matter back before consolidation officer to decide the delay condonation matter afresh. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner challenging the revisional order dated 29.11.1984 passed by respondent No. 1/Assistant director of Consolidation Mathura

3. This Count vide order dated 30.1.1985 admitted the writ petition, issued notice to respondents and stayed the further proceedings before the consolidation officer, in pursuance of the impugned order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation dated 29.11.1984

4. On behalf of respondent No. 3/3 a counter-affidavit dated 3.3.2024 has been filed to the writ petition on 8.4.2024.

5. Petitioner has also filed a supplementary-affidavit dated 5.4.2024 on 8.4.2024.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that delay in filling title objection has been rightly condoned by consolidation officer vide order dated 9.9.1983 and date was fixed for evidence but revisional count has illegally set aside the order condoning delay in filing title objection under the impugned order dated 29.11.1984 and sent the matter back before Consolidation Officer for fresh consideration of delay condonation matter, which is abuse of process of law. He further submitted on the date of filing of time barred objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act the village was not notified under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act as such there was no illegality in the order of Consolidation Officer dated 9.9. 1983 granting benefit of Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act. He further submitted that parties are contesting civil litigation also in respect to plot in question as such title objections filed by petitioners is to be decided on merit in accordance with law considering the judgment and decree passed by Civil Court. He further submitted that order of Condonation of delay should not be interfered with by higher Courts in order to advance the justice between the parties. He further submitted impugned revisional order dated 29.11.1984 be set aside and Consolidation Officer be directed to decide the title objection on merit expeditiously.

7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3/3 submitted that respondent No- 3/2 Om Prakash has expired on 1.11.2021 and respondent No. 5 Kalicharan has expired in the year 1987 but no steps for substitution of l