The Consolidation Authorities have jurisdiction to entertain an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal or revision after the issue of notification under Section 52 of the Act, as Section 53B of the Act makes Section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable to the proceedings under the Act.

( 1 ) THE controversy in this writ petition is as to whether after issue of Notification under Section 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short the Act), the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal can be entertained and decided by the Consolidation authorities.

( 2 ) THE controversy arises on the following facts. The petitioner filed objection that she is a tenureholder of the land in dispute. The objection was allowed by the Consolidation Officer. In pursuance of the order of Consolidation Officer a reference was made to the Deputy Director of consolidation which was accepted by him. The village was denotified under Section 52 of the act on 20. 6. 1981. The petitioner sold her rights to Ramraj Singh and Balram Singh. They filed an application for mutation of their names. This mutation application was allowed by the assistant Consolidation Officer on 28. 3. 1993. On 21. 8. 1995 an appeal was filed on behalf of the state of U. P. and Gaon Sabha against the order of the Consolidation Officer, whereby the objection of the petitioner was allowed. In the memo of appeal it was stated that the Gaon Sabha was owner of the property in dispute. The petitioner and Kama) S/o Iqbal were never in possession and could not have acquired rights over the land of Gaon Sabha. The applicants also filed an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. An affidavit was filed by the pradhan of the Gaon Sabha explaining the delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner raised an objection that the application for condonation of delay was not maintainable. The Assistant settlement Officer Consolidation passed an order on 20. 3. 1997 that the matter relating to the condonation of delay can be considered after the parties adduced evidence in the case. It was further observed that the question as to whether the application for condonation of delay be decided first, will be considered at a later stage. The petitioner filed the revision against this order before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Respondent No. 1 has dismissed the revision by the impugned order dated 21/8/1997.

( 3 ) SRI Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after issue of notification under Section 52 of the Act, the Consolidation Authorities have no jurisdiction to entertain any application in respect of a dispute which has been decided before the issue of notification under Section 52 of the Act.

( 4 ) SECTION 53b of the Act provides that the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. 1908 shall apply to the applications, appeals, revisions and other proceedings under the Act or the Rules made thereunder. In Bhagwati v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1983 alj 1250, it was held that an appeal or revision can be filed even after denotlfication against an order which was passed prior to the date of denotification although limitation for filing the appeal or revision had already expired in view of Section 53b of the Act which makes Section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable to the proceedings under the Act. The Court relied upon the decision Shyam Narain Rai v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1981 RD 301. The same view was taken in Nathani Singh v. Assistant Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur, 1990 RD 258.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision Hari Ram v. Deputy director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and others, 1989 RD 281, wherein it was held that if the village is denotified under Section 52 of the Act, the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not entitled to exercise his power by deciding reference under Section 48 (3) of the Act. In this case, the Court was not considering a case when a party files an application to condone the delay in submitting a matter or files an application for restoration of the case decided ex parte. This question came up for consideration in Radhey Shyam and another v. Deputy Director of consolidation, B