JUDGMENT

Sri S.K. Mishra, J.

1. Heard Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. In this writ application, the petitioner assails the order dated 15.07.2021 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar, in Revision No. 114 of 2015, Smt. Shamima Khatoon vs. Musarrat, whereby the revisional authority under the Consolidation of Holdings Act has remanded the matter to the Officer in Court of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, to re-hear the appeal no. 88 on the question of limitation. The only challenge to the order passed by the revisional authority in this writ application is the question of delay. Admittedly, there has been a delay of about 13 years in preferring the application/objection before the Consolidation Officer, Roorkee. However, it is apparent from the records that the respondent obtained the order by fraud and misrepresentation in the order passed on 28.05.1997. As far the said order, plot no. 195 is concerned having an area of 0.0205 hectares, but 0.0410 hectares has been recorded. In other words, an additional land measuring 0.0395 hectares has been added in Gata (plot) No. 195. Similarly, in gata no. (plot) no. 197, instead of recording an area 0.0410 hectares, record has been made measuring 0.1741 hectares thereby recording 0.1331 hectares more than what, he is entitled to. In this way, in view of the order impugned before the revisional authority, in both the plots, a total area of 0.1726 hectares has been increased.

The learned Commissioner held that such an action on the part of the Consolidation Authority is erroneous as there is no judicial and authoritative pronouncement to that effect to record the increase the area in plot nos. 195 and 197. It is further held by the learned revisional authority that the petitioners have purchased gata no. (plot no.) 272 with an area of 0.0493 hectares from Parvarish S/o Makshood, resident of Pohana. She has also purchased plot no. 273 measuring an area of 0.492 hectares from Ikbal S/o Abad Ali of village Pohana. The aforesaid two plots were, in course of time, recorded as Chack Nos. 48-A & 48-B, which is effected by the increase of an area of plot nos. 193 and 194. The petitioner was found to be in possession of Chack nos. 48-A and 48-B having right, title and interest.

3. The learned Revisional Authorities further observed in his order that though plot no. 193 and 194 were in possession of the petitioner, the present petitioner before us on 10.01.2011, on the basis of the impugned order, in which, the areas has been increased, tried to amalgamate it in plot nos. 195 and 197 by forcibly trying to occupy the lands of the neighbouring tenure-holders, as a result of which, the petitioner, respondent before us, before the Commissioner was prejudiced. Thus, the petitioner tried to take over the possession of the land belonging to respondent no. 1 by use of force. Thus, his actions are illegal and against the provisions of law. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, being the revisional authority under the Act, also came to the conclusion that the order passed originally on 28.05.1997 is absolutely without jurisdiction and he has no authority to increase the lands belonging to the petitioner by adding a total area of 0.1726 hectares has been increased, which shall affect the right, title and interest over the land in the possession of the sole respondent.

4. It is true that the initial objection filed by the respondent before the Consolidation Officer for correction of the records regarding the land of the petitioner by increasing its area which is led to a great manifest injustice and, therefore, the order passed by the Consolidation Officer originally appears to be illegal and for that reason the illegality committed by the Consolidation Officer, the respondents should not sufferer. In that view of the matter, he condoned the delay in filing the objection, appeal etc. and remanded the matter