The court ruled that time-barred objections cannot disturb previously established rights in consolidation proceedings, reinforcing the principle of finality in administrative decisions.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Mr. Brajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Mr. Vijay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 & 5.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Village Girdawa Shahanpur, Pargana and Tehsil Nazibabad, District Bijnor was notified under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the “U.P. C.H. Act”) on 16.8.1992. The petitioner is chak holder no.63 and original holding of the petitioner is 95/1, etc. (total area .388 hect.). The petitioner was proposed chak on plot no. 258, area .293 hect. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 are chak holder no.466. The original holding of respondent nos. 4 & 5 are plot no.258, etc., area 3.688 hect. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 were allotted single chak on plot no.258, etc., area 3.650 etc. A time-barred objection under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed by respondent nos. 4 & 5 for declaring the plot no.258 as chak out. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.5.2010 excluded the plot no.258, area 3.650 hect. from consolidation scheme. Against the order dated 28.5.2010 passed by the Consolidation Officer, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 11 (1) of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was registered as Appeal No.522 of 2010-11. The aforementioned appeal was heard and allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 15.12.2010. The delivery of possession of the village in question including the chak of the petitioner, was taken place on 25.5.2011. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 filed a time-barred restoration application to recall the order dated 15.12.2010 which was rejected by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 23.1.2015. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 challenged the order dated 15.12.2010 by way of revision under Section 4 8 of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned revision was heard and dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18.6.2015. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 filed a Writ Petition No.42518 of 2015 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 31.7.2015. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 filed two time-barred objection under Section 21 (1) of the U.P. C.H. Act. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 25.3.2015 allowed the objection and area .100 hect. was excluded from consolidation scheme, affecting the chak of the petitioner, without condoning the long delay in filing the chak objection. Petitioner filed a restoration application before the Consolidation Officer against the order dated 25.3.2015 which was rejected vide order dated 13.4.2015. Against the orders dated 13.4.2015 and 25.3.2015, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 21 (2) of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was heard and dismissed vide order dated 8.6.2015. The revision under Section 4 8 of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, was registered as Revision No.486 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned revision was heard and allowed vide order dated 18.6.2015, setting aside the orders dated 8.6.2015, 25.3.2015, 13.4.2015. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 initiated time- barred proceeding under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act for excluding the plot nos. 95/1 & 95/2 from consolidation scheme. The aforementioned proceeding/time-barred objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 1.10.2015. Respon