Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 6.1.2021 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao and the order dated 26.12.2016 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Unnao.
It is the case of the petitioner that in the Aadhar Varsh Khatauni, the name of Thakurji Maharaj Virajman Mandir, Haidrabad, through its Manager Shankar Das Chela Raghav Das was recorded as Sankramaniya Bhumidhar in respect of Khata no.115. In the consolidation operation, the petitioner filed objection under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act stating that earlier the disputed land was recorded in his Guru, Guru Ayodhya Prasad's name and thereafter the name of Guru Baldeo Das was recorded as Varastan in the revenue records and after the death of Baldeo Das, the land has wrongly been recorded in the name of Thakurji Maharaj.
The petitioner filed the Khatauni of 1363 Fasli to substantiate his claim. The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 2.6.1998 ordered the name of the petitioner to be recorded in place of Thakurji Maharaj in the revenue records. Against the order dated 2.6.1998, respondent no.3 filed an appeal after 15 years on 27.8.2013 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the S.O.C. Although no proper reason was given for approaching the appellate court with delay, the S.O.C. condoned the delay by an order dated 26.12.2016. The petitioner being aggrieved, approached the D.D.C., who passed the order impugned dated 6.1.2021, saying that the revision was not maintainable against an interlocutory order as only delay has been condoned by the appellate court and no final decision on merits of the case has been taken.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the D.D.C. is against the law settled by this Court in a coordinate Bench decision in Bodda vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda and others, 2013 (119) RD 180, where in Para-12, this Court observed that condoning the delay means that the respondents had a right to pursue the appeal. Had the delay not been condoned, the right of pursuing appeal would have never arisen as unless the delay is condoned, there can be no appeal. Explanation (2) of Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act explains the interlocutory order, and says that since the effect of allowing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act would mean attaching the finality of the proceedings, therefore, such order will not fall in the ambit of interlocutory order and the revision was maintainable. The D.D.C. had erred in dismissing the revision as not maintainable. The coordinate Bench has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered in Bhagwat and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1990 RD 162 and Meharban and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2006 RD 646.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that a bare perusal of the application for condonation of delay would show that no reason was assigned for approaching the appellate court with delay except that the appellant could not derive knowledge earlier of the order passed by the S.O.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the averments made in Para-7 of the application, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure to the writ petition.
This Court has carefully perused the application which shows that the appellant is the current Manager of the Samiti/Trust which is Incharge of day to day affairs of Thakurji Maharaj Virajman Mandir and the earlier Manager was Baba Shankar Das Chela Raghav Das. The appellant had no notice of any such objection being filed by the respondents to the appeal before the Consolidation Officer. It was further stated in the application that the land in question was the land of Mandir Trust and there was no jurisdiction with the Consolidation Officer to handover the Trust's land to the respondents in appeal. The respondents have got their name recorded in the revenue records in a fraudulent manner and respondent no.1 to the appeal had very recently started saying that Plot nos.148, 150, 397, 408, 490, 495, 508Kha, 532, 538 and 938 altogether from Khata no.161 had been recorded in his name and he was proposing to sell off the land in question. It was only after a claim was made in public that the appellant Thakurji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Trust came to know that the land was recorded in the name of the respondents to the appeal, therefore, the appeal was being filed.
It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question was never the property of Thakurji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Trust, but was personal property of one Baldeo Das Chela Ayodhya Prasad and the petitioner was Chela of Baldeo Das.
This Court finds that the facts can only be ascertained after the appeal is heard on merits by the S.O.C. However, to claim that the property in question is personal property of the petitioner, he would have to first clearly make out as to how Baba Chandra Pal Das purchased the property in question that was earlier recorded in the basic year Khatauni in the name of Thakurji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Trust as his self acquired property.
Even if the order passed by the D.D.C. is erroneous in view of law settled by this Court in Bodda (supra) and the revision is maintainable, the D.D.C. can only see the propriety of the order passed condoning the delay. The D.D.C. has seen from the allegations made in the revision and from the lower court record that no information was given to the respondents of any objections under Section 9A(2) of the Act being filed and therefore, they had a right to be heard, at least on the merits of the case before some authority viz. Settlement Officer Consolidation.
This Court has gone through the order passed by the S.O.C., who had observed that the land was earlier recorded in the name of Thakurji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Trust through Manager Baba Shankar Das in the form of a Trust.
This Court finds no good ground to show interference in the order passed by the S.O.C. in condoning the delay. It will be open for the petitioner to plead his case on merit that the property belonged to Baba Baldeo Das Chela Ayodhya Prasad as his self acquired property and did not belong to Mandir Trust. If the case is not heard on merits, there will be a bar under Section 49 of the Act and Thakurji Maharaj Virajman, the deity in question shall never be able to establish his rights over the property in question before any other Court.
The petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.2.2021 Sachin