Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5018 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 69 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mata Prasad @ Mata Prasad Pathak Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Balrampur And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Desh Deepak Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Under challenge is the order passed by the D.D.C dated 27.11.2024 whereby it has rejected the revision holding that there is an inordinate delay which has not been appropriately explained and it upheld the order passed by the S.O.C. The record indicates that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner namely Ram Pheran had preferred an appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 17.09.1996 assailing the order dated 11.07.1967. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is alleged that the respondents had got their names fraudulently incorporated in the revenue records and it is stated that on 17.07.1996, the father of the petitioners namely Ram Pheran came to know about the same in light of certain rumour mongering in the village. It is further stated that the files were inspected 19.07.1996, whereafter certified copies were applied for which were made available on 17.09.1996 and, thereafter, the appeal was preferred. This application under Section 5 has been rejected by the S.O.C holding that no sufficient cause has been made out apart from the fact that the appeal was preferred after about 29 years and in absence of any cogent cause explaining the delay the application was rejected. The same view has been echoed by the revisional court while dismissing the revision on 27.11.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a valiant attempt to justify and explain the laches and delay and in furtherance thereof, it is stated that only after the death of grand father of the petitioner he got the knowledge of the impugned order dated 11.07.1967 when he happened to see the relevant revenue entries on account of which was necessitated on account of altercation which took place with the private respondents. The petitioner's father also died in 1996 and, hence, they were not aware apart from the fact that they were befallen with poverty and could not file the review. Having examined the aforesaid submission what appears to be strange is the fact that the order impugned was passed in the year 1967 and it was duly recorded in the revenue record. Even in the entire petition, it has not been indicated when the notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H Act, 1953 was made. This assumes significance for the reason that till such time, the notification under Section 52 of the Act of 1953 is not made, the Consolidation Authorities continued to possess jurisdiction while performing their duties under the Act, however, only after the notification under Section 52, the Consolidation Authorities loose their jurisdiction only subject to the proceedings and matters which are saved in terms of Section 52(2) of the Act, 1953. Stating that the petitioners became aware of the order on the basis of rumour mongering in the village is apparently too vague to explain the delay of 29 years, specially where during consolidation operations at each stage of the proceedings, different forms are distributed to the tenure holders as well as several notices are pasted on the conspicuous buildings and it is very difficult to fathom that for 29 years, it was not known to the petitioner regarding the order of 1967. Upon the conclusion of the consolidation operations, the relevant records are handed over to the revenue authorities and in this context it is again very difficult to believe that the petitioner being a recorded owner was not aware of the entries of the revenue record. It is for the aforesaid reason that the D.D.C did not find favour with the explanation offered by the petitioner suggesting to condone the delay of 29 years. Even if at all a liberal view is adopted, even then it as necessarily to be explained by a party by giving cogent explanation for such delay. Needless to say that it is not the length of delay which is material but it is the explanation and sufficiency of cause which is important. Even a long delay, if properly explained can be condoned but on the contrary even a short delay but not adequately explained may result in dismissal. (See: H Guruswamy and Others vs A.Krishnaiah; 2025 SCC Online SC 54). Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any palpable error in the orders passed by the S.O.C and D.D.C respectively and considering the explanation furnished by the petitioners. The opinion formed by the S.O.C and the D.D.C cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench