The court emphasized the importance of showing sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal and reiterated that in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the court does not act as a Court of Appeal.

1. Petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated 31.05.1994 passed by Consolidation Officer, Roorkee; 27.11.2001 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation and 15.06.2007 passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation (Annexure 4, 8 & 10 to the writ petition).

2. Facts of the case in brief are that respondent – Sadilal (respondent herein) filed an objection under Section 9 of Consolidation of Holdings Act stating that name of petitioner No. 1 and Mohd. Hasan S/o Alimuddin has been wrongly recorded in revenue records as Bhumidhar with transferable rights over the land comprised in plot no. 228, 259 and 231/7 situate in Village Padali Gujjar, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. The said objection was registered as Case No. 787 before Consolidation Officer, Roorkee (West). Respondent contended before the Consolidation Officer that he had purchased part of land from Sri Razzak S/o Visarat and regarding the remaining land he contended that he is in adverse possession and accordingly, his name has been recorded in category 9 in the revenue records.

3. Consolidation Officer issued notice to the petitioners, however, they did not participate in the proceedings despite notice. Ultimately, the Consolidation Officer partly allowed the case in favour of respondent vide order dated 31.05.1994 and ordered that name of the respondent be recorded as Bhumidar with transferable rights in place of petitioner No. 1 and another in respect of plot no. 228 admeasuring 2 Biswa 10 Biswansi, plot No. 259/1 admeasuring 12 Biswa and Plot No. 259/2 admeasuring 6 Biswa on the basis of adverse possession.

4. Petitioners did not challenge the order passed by Consolidation Officer for a considerable period of time and after seven years they filed an appeal under Section 11 (1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Haridwar. Respondent also filed an appeal with the prayer that the order dated 31.05.1994 passed by the Consolidation Officer be modified and he be recorded as Bhumidhar with transferable rights in respect of 3 Biswa land comprised in plot No. 228 and 1 Bigah 7 Biswa land comprised in plot No. 259/1 on the basis of sale deed executed in his favour by the previous owner. The appeal filed by the respondent was partly allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act which too has been dismissed by learned Deputy Director of Consolidation. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A bare perusal of the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation reveals that no sufficient cause was shown by the petitioners for the delay of seven years in filing the appeal. The order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has been affirmed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation. Undoubtedly, a liberal approach has to be adopted while considering the delay condonation application. However, it does not mean that every application for condonation of delay has to be allowed irrespective of the fact whether sufficient cause has been shown or not. Long delay of seven years caused by the petitioners in filing the appeal indicates that either they were not diligent in pursuing the remedy or they had accepted the judgment given by Consolidation Officer and one fine morning, they changed their mind and decided to challenge the order passed by Consolidation Officer.

6. It is settled position in law that in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court does not act as a Court of Appeal. It can neither review nor re-appreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based. This Court cannot correct errors of fact or even of law and cannot substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in th