Samsuddin vs Director of Consolidation and others

M. P. Mehrotra, J.

The point involved in the writ petition is that the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. in their respective appellate and revisional orders went into the merits of a timebarred objection which had been rejected by the consolidation officer on the ground of limitation and the prayer for the condonation of delay was also rejected. The C.O. in his order, which is annexure 3 to the writ petition gave grounds why he rejected the prayer for the condonation of delay in the filing of the objection. He has clearly observed ''I, therefore, find no force in the explanation of delay and as such I am unable to condone the delay. The delay is not condoned. The objection is rejected''. An appeal was taken to the S.O.C. against the said order of the C.O. and the S.O.C. was conscious of the fact (as is clear from his order). That the objection had been rejected by the C.O. on the ground of limitation yet the S.O.C. did not care to examine the question of limitation and straightaway went into the merits of the case and he allowed the appeal. The D.D.C. also did the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the two courts below thus did not act in accordance with law and the error is apparent on the face of the record. I accept this contention and, therefore, set aside the order of the S.O.C. which is annexure 4 to the writ petition and the order of the D.D.C. which is annexure 6 to the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.