A party must demonstrate substantive rights to challenge consolidation orders; inordinate delay in seeking restoration applications without sufficient explanation cannot be condoned.

JUDGMENT :

DINESH PATHAK, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. Instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :-

“(a) Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.09.1981, 28.05.2010, 12.01.2011 and 09.04.2012 and order dated 22.06.2013, 29.05.2017 ad 27.12.2023.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents not to dispossess he petitioner from the land in dispute in which he is in possession.”

3. Details of the impugned orders, as assailed in the instant writ petition, are given below :dismissed by the D.D.C. on the ground that the said order has already attained finality by the order dated 12.12.1996 passed by the High Court in Writ-B No.13516 of 1981.

4. Facts culled out from the record are that in basic consolidation record, land in dispute was recorded in the name of Ram Lal. During consolidation operation, Ram Lal died on 03.07.1977. Three set of objections were filed; first on behalf of Gena and Luddur who are claiming their right and title being real brothers of Ram Lal; second objection was filed on behalf of Shyama Devi being daughter of Ram Lal and third objection was filed on behalf of Radhey Shyam being an adopted son of Ram Lal on the basis of adoption deed dated 10.03.1976. The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 03.11.1980, has allowed the objection filed on behalf of Radhey Shyam, however, dismissed the remaining objections. Having been aggrieved with the order dated 03.11.1980, two set of appeals were preferred, one by Shyama Devi and Second by Luddur. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity ‘S.O.C.’), vide order dated 06.02.1981, has allowed the appeal filed on behalf of Luddur, however, rejected the appeal filed on behalf of Shyama Devi. The Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity ‘D.D.C.’), on revision being filed on behalf of Radhey Shyam, has allowed the same, vide its order dated 26.09.1981, and acknowledged his right and title over the property in question on the basis of adoption deed and affirmed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Assailing the order dated 26.09.1981, a writ petition has been preferred before this Court being Writ Petition No.13516 of 1981 which was ordered to be dismissed in default vide order dated 12.12.1996. As per averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner, restoration application filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 12.12.1996 is pending consideration. In the meantime, an application under Rule 109-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules (in brevity ‘U.P.C.H. Rules’) has been moved on behalf of Radhey Shyam to get the land revenue rec