Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37170 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 597 of 2025 Petitioner :- Awanish Kumar Agarwal And Another Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, District Bahraich And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar Shukla,Mohit Singh,Shivam Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Rahul Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for State respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondents are dispensed with. 3. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by Dy. Director of Consolidation in revision proceedings initiated by respondent No. 6 against the order dated 29.11.2003 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Bahraich whereby he had allowed the application preferred by one Shabbi Sahiba for correction of map. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners are the successor in interest of the applicant who had moved the application U/S 42-A of Consolidation of Holdings Act pertaining to Gata No. 672/0-163 hectare situated at Village Aminpur Nagraur, Pargana, Tehsil and District Bahraich. He further submits that the petitioners had purchased the entire plot contained in Gata No. 672 and are owner in possession of the said plot. 5. He has submitted that against the order dated 29.11.2003 a revision has been preferred by respondent No. 6 who was the respondent also in the proceedings initiated by the petitioners U/S 42-A of C.H. Act before the Dy. Director of Consolidation. After a period of 21 years, an application for condonation of delay has also been filed which has been allowed by means of impugned order. 6. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that it has been stated by respondent No. 6 that she was not aware of the proceedings initiated by Shabbi Sahiba U/S 42-A of the C.H. Act and even despite the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation the map was in fact not corrected and incorrect map continued in the revenue records. It is in the aforesaid reasons, it was stated by respondent no. 6 that she was never aware of the order dated 29.11.2003 and accordingly prayed for condonation of delay. 7. The Dy. Director of Consolidation duly considered the facts pertaining to condonation of delay and on being satisfied that the delay has been reasonably explained which pertain to lack of knowledge by the revisionist, he has condoned the delay which has been assailed by the petitioners before this Court. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds that there were sufficient grounds before the Dy. Director of Consolidation to have condoned the delay. Undoubtedly provision of Limitation Act applied to the proceedings U/S 48 of C.H. Act and he has duly appreciated the facts placed by respondent No. 6 and the aforesaid facts could not be denied by the petitioners that despite appropriate orders have been passed on the application U/S 42-A of C.H. Act, the said order was not in fact given effect to. 9. In light of the above,, this Court is not inclined to interefere in the said matter and this Court further finds that the proceedings are pending before the Dy. Director of Consolidation where apart from the aforesaid grounds all the grounds in their defence can be raised by the petitioners on merits. Accordingly, no interfere is called for by this Court with regard to the impugned order. The writ petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed. 10. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to move an appropriate application for expediting the proceedings before the Dy. Director of Consolidation and if any such application is made, the Dy. Director of Consolidation shall consider and decide the same with expedition. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 2.7.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench