Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3650 of 2018 Petitioner :- Veer Singh Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 24th January, 2018 and the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 27th June, 2014, whereby the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 26th April, 2010 was set aside.
The Consolidation Officer vide the said order dated 26th April, 2010 has rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of respondent no. 4. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent no. 4 had preferred an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, "the Act"), which was allowed on 27th June, 2014 and the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside. Dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 48 of the Act, which came to be dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 24th January, 2018.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was moved after a considerable long time and the Consolidation Officer has rightly rejected the said application.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
It is well-settled law that while deciding application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the Court should not take technical and narrow view particularly in the case of the agriculturists, who are semi-illiterate/ illiterate. The effect of the impugned order is that the matter will be heard on merit by the Consolidation Officer.
The Supreme Court in the case of Ramji Dass and others v. Mohan Singh, 1978 A.R.C. 496, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer (as he then was) speaking for the Bench, held that if there is preference before the Court between hearing of the matter and shutting out hearing of the matter, the Court should always lean in favour of hearing. The Supreme Court in the case of S. Ganesharaju (Dead) through LRs. and another v. Narasamma (Dead) through LRs. and others, (2013) 11 SCC 341, has held that object of the Limitation Act is not to destroy the rights of the parties. Both the Courts below have taken concurrent view in favour of hearing of the matter on merit under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the above, I do not find it a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Courts have taken a view in the line of the decisions of the Supreme Court interpreting Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Hence, the writ petition lacks merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the Consolidation Officer concerned is directed to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a year. Both the parties will not seek unnecessary adjournments before the Consolidation Officer.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018 SKT/-