Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 203 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sant Ram And 3 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Afshan Shafaut,Mohammad Mustafa Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
It appears that an objection 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was decided by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 11.09.1991, in favour of the petitioners.
Against this order, an appeal was filed by the respondent on 22.11.2007 along with an application for condonation of delay.
The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 19.09.2016, finding that no counter affidavit had been filed, controverting the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, condoned the delay.
Against this order condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which has been dismissed by the order dated 11.09.2018.
Hence, this writ petition challenging the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation condoning the delay and the revisional order, whereby the consequential revision had been dismissed.
In my considered opinion, the Settlement Officer Consolidation rightly condoned the delay as no counter affidavit to the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application was filed by the petitioner. It is the settled legal position that an uncontroverted affidavit is liable to be accepted.
Even otherwise, an order condoning the delay is a discretionary order of the Court considering the application for condonation of delay. It is settled law that the superior Court should not lightly interfere in such a discretionary order. Until and unless, it is shown to be perverse. No such perversity is alleged in the writ petition or in grounds taken therein.
Even otherwise, the petitioners shall has every opportunity of canvasing their claims, both on facts and law before the appellate authority to establish that the order of the Consolidation Officer in favour of the petitioners is liable to be affirmed.
Under the circumstances, this Court does not find it a fit case for interference.
The writ petition therefore, fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 RKM