Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41755 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 677 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Bahadur Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Shrawasti And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Prasad Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Prasad Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1 and 2. 2. In light of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the dispute in the present case pertains to khata No.303 situated in Village Madhvapur, Pargana Tulsipur, Tehsil Bhinga, District Shrawasti which is the land of petitioner's ancestors and the same is recorded in the name of Smt. Lakhpatta- the grand mother of the petitioner and during the consolidation operations on the basis of a compromise entered into between the grandmother of the petitioner and father of opposite party No.4 orders were passed on 5.5.1986. Subsequently, opposite party No.3 filed appeal in which the previous order of Consolidation Officer dated 5..5.1986 was set aside and the matter was remanded back. 4. The petitioner filed revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation which was dismissed on 21.12.2023 for want of prosecution. The petitioner preferred an application for restoration but the same has also been rejected vide order dated 22.2.2025 only on the ground of limitation stating that the restoration application has been filed after more than one year. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a labourer and had gone to another State to earn his livelihood and after engaging a counsel and filing the revision he had left but it seems that the counsel did not appear when the case was listed and it is only when he came to know of the said facts he has moved application for restoration and accordingly, it was stated that the delay was bonafide and not intentional and prayed for condonation of the delay. 6. The Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected the application for condonation of delay stating that no concrete facts have been stated by the petitioner which may persuade him for condonation of the delay and accordingly rejected the revision. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute in the present case is going on since 1987 and the petitioner has been regularly pursuing the said litigation and merely because of the fact that he had to go outside the State he was not aware of the day-to-day proceedings for which purpose he had engaged a counsel. It is only when he contacted his counsel who did not give satisfactory reply and it was known that the matter has been dismissed for want of prosecution and immediately thereafter, moved application for restoration which has been rejected by means of the impugned order. 8. Considering the submissions of the petitioner, we find that though there has been a delay in filing the restoration application but sufficient reasons were stated by the petitioner, which according to him, had arisen due to the fact that he was working outside the State and for the purpose of filing revision he had engaged a counsel and paid the fee. 9. Considering the aforesaid, we find that the reason for the delay has been sufficiently explained by the petitioner and in any case the delay was not for such a reasonably long time which may indicate that the petitioner wanted to keep the matter pending deliberately and accordingly, I find that sufficient reasons has been disclosed by the petitioner and hence the revisional authority should have allowed the application for condonation of delay, heard the matter and remanded the matter back to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation for being decided afresh on merits but instead of exercising the jurisdiction vested in him he has arbitrarily rejected the application for condonation of delay. 10. This Court is of the considered view that the delay has been sufficiently explained and accordingly the impugned order dated 24.4.2025 as well as order dated 21.12.023 deserve to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 21.4.2025 and 21.12.2023 are quashed. 12. That matter is remanded back to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the matter with expedition. 13. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings before the said authority, who in turn is directed to conclude the proceedings within a maximum period of six months from the date a certified cop of this order is placed before him, in accordance with law in case there is no legal impediment. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 22.7.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench