Arjun and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition arises out of the judgment and order dated 23.5.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order dated 23.4.1985 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation.

Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ petition are that during first consolidation, the name of Ram Lal, Sunder, Rameshwar and Ganpat was recorded in the basic year. An objection was filed by Nohar, Maya Ram, Jiya Ram and Tulsi, with their name be recorded as co-tenant, which objection was allowed by the Consolidation Officer by its order dated 4.7.1962. Ganpat and others filed an appeal which was rejected on 23.1.1967. Against the order dated 23.1.1967 as well as the order dated 27.2.1978 of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, two revisions were preferred and the Revisional Authority allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 27.10.1989 against which a writ petition was preferred, which was dismissed on 15.8.1981. On remand, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation rejected the appeal of Ganpat and others on 12.5.1982 and the order dated 4.7.1962 passed by the Consolidation Officer was maintained. Against the order dated 12.5.1982, Rameshwar and others filed revision, which was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and the matter was remanded to Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 30.7.1984.

In the meantime, the village was again notified under the consolidation. When the notification was published, the proceedings before the Settlement Officer Consolidation in compliance of the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.7.1984 were pending. The Settlement Officer Consolidation, in view of the fresh notification for consolidation, abated the case u/s 5(2) of the Act and also set-aside the order dated 4.7.1962.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners being the illiterate persons, were adviced by his Counsel that they are not required to assail the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation and should contest the second proceedings of consolidation. For this reason, the order dated 23.4.1985 was not assailed by the petitioners in time.

The contesting respondents filed objections during the second consolidation scheme, which was rejected on 24.11.1988 against which restoration application was filed, which was allowed on 31.12.1988. Consequently, the petitioners filed an appeal, which was allowed and the case was remanded on 4.3.1989. Feeling aggrieved, Ram Deen and others filed revision on which Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 16.3.1989 remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer. The aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioners in a writ petition before this Court.

When the petitioners were told by another Counsel that they were wrongly advised not to assail the order dated 23.4.1985 and as such, on legal advice, petitioners filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 5.10.1994 alongwith an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act explaining therein the reasons for delay in filing the revision. The Revisional Authority rejected the revision vide order dated 23.5.2006 being barred by time.

Counsel for the petitioners contends that the delay in filing the revision was due to wrong advice given to the petitioners by the local Counsel and it was bona fide mistake on their part but the Revisional Authority rejected the revision on technical ground of limitation overlooking the fact that the Court shall make an endeavour to decide the controversy on merits rather than on technicalities. Therefore, the impugned order has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners.

On the other hand, the Counsel for the contesting respondents has submitted that there is no error in the impugned judgment passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as the Revision was highly time barred. The Deputy Director Consolidation rightly held that it is absolutely wrong to say that the petitioners were not aware about the effect of the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 23.4.1985. The explanation given by the petitioners was not found satisfactory by the Revisional Authority. In these circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Admittedly, the Revision has been dismissed on the ground of limitation and the explanation of the petitioners that they were not aware about the consequences of the order dated 23.4.1985 was not found plausible.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment, I am of the opinion that the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed an error in not deciding the revision on merits and throwing the same on the ground of limitation. It is not disputed between the parties that the petitioners are illiterate persons and had they were aware about the consequences of abatement order, there was no reason for them not to assail the said order without loss of time before the appropriate forum. It was under the mistaken advice that they did not assail the order dated 23.4.1985. Therefore, the delay in filing the revision was not intentional and whatever the delay has occurred, it was under the mistaken legal advice.

It is a cardinal principle of law that the court should decide the case on its merits rather than on the technicalities. The said principle has been reiterated in State of U. P. and others Vs. Harish Chandra and others, and State of Bihar and Others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Another, wherein it has been emphasized that the Court should decide the case on merits rather than on technical grounds. The Revisional Authority lost sight of the fact that the petitioners were rigorously contesting the case after the first consolidation scheme and on the date of notification of the second notification scheme, the matter was pending before the settlement officer consolidation, in which an order of abatement was passed. Had they been actually aware of the consequences, they ought not have remained idle.

For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 23.5.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby set-aside and the delay in filing the revision is condoned. The matter is remitted to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for deciding the revision afresh on merits, expeditiously. I hope and trust that the Deputy Director of Consolidation will make an earnest endeavour to conclude the proceedings finally within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

It is clarified that the parties will not seek any unnecessary adjournment and in case either of the parties seeks any adjournment, it shall be allowed on costs subject to the satisfaction of Deputy Director of Consolidation.