Bhai Lal vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

U.C. Srivastava, J.—The amendment application filed by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer, who took the plea of cotenancy rights, for adding one more plea of adverse possession, was rejected. Thereafter he filed a revision petition which was dismissed as not maintainable, in view of .the, amendments made in Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act Which prohibits revision application against interlocutory order. The, Consolidation Officer passed a telegraphic order rejecting the application without assigning any reasons. He even did not consider that the case is still, pending and the petitioner was taking the plea of adverse possession and in the alternative. By not assigning any reasons, and not considering the amendment application on merit the Consolidation Officer prolonged the case. The order passed by. The Consolidation Officer is thus manifestly erroneous.

The writ petition is allowed and the order dated 27111984 (Annexure 4) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order dated 29101984 (Annexure 3) passed by the Consolidation Officer are quashed and the Consolidation Officer is directed to consider the amendment application on merits. As the matter is old, the Consolidation Officer will decide the case within a period of three months from today. No order as to costs.

(Petition allowed)