Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43509 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 689 of 2025 Petitioner :- Farhan Ahamad And 2 Others Respondent :- Consolidation Officer Tehsil Sohawal Ayodhya And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Tiwari,Ajay Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Shri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent no.1. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to respondents no. 2 to 7 is dispensed with. 3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 2.6.2025 passed by respondent no.1- Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Ayodhya, in Case No. 105/2024, Computer Case No. 202454042345010105, 'Triyugi Narayan Versus State of U.P.', whereby he has recalled his previous order dated 22.03.1986. 4. The facts in brief as submitted by the petitioners that original Gata No. 831, old gata no. 5399 (New gata 1518) area 12 Biswa was recorded in the name of Mohd. Haneef, Maksood Ahmad, Ishtiyaq Ahmad, Mushtaq Ahmad and Ashfaq Ahmad and even after change of the number of the Gata, which was numbered as 831 was also recorded in the name of Mohd. Haneef. 5. It has been stated that Consolidation Officer due to clerical mistake the area of Gata No. 831 was determined to be less than the actual area and accordingly objections were filed on 27.11.1984 under Section 9(A-2) of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Consolidation Officer, Faizabad for correcting the same. It is submitted that the report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer was received and on the basis of the said, an order was passed on 22.3.1986, which is as follows:- " Aaj Patrawali Pesh Huyee. Sahayak Chakbandi Adhikari ki Paimaish Aakhya ka Avalokan kiya gaya. Atah Aadesh Huaa ki Aaraji number 831/0-12-0 Anusar Mauka Darj ho. Patrawali baad amaldaramad dakhil daftar ho." 6. It is after 20 years that predecessor of the interest of the private respondents filed a recall application of the order dated 22.3.1986 on 15.9.2006 claiming that his house was situated at Gata No. 831 from a very long time, prior to coming into force of the Zaminidari Abolition Act and is only subsequently that he came to know that subsequently the order dated 22.3.1986 the said gata no. has wrongly been recorded in the name of the predecessor of the interest of the petitioner and accordingly he moved the said objection. 7. It has further been stated that the application of the private respondents, was dismissed for want of prosecution some time in the year 2013, but the same was recalled and has been allowed by means of the impugned order dated 2.6.2025 while allowing the application for recall the Consolidation Officer has duly considered the rival contentions. With regard to the contention raised by the applicant it has been recorded that the name of the petitioner has been recorded in the revenue record only after order dated 22.3.1986. It was further noticed that with regard to Gata No. 831 old gata no. 5399 it has been claimed by the private respondents that it is part of the purani Abadi, on which time of his ancestors, they are in possession and continue to in possession of the same and also that a house is also existing on the said land. It is only when they came to know that there has been some mutation proceedings and now it is not longer recorded as an Abadi, they perused the revenue record and found pursuant to the order dated 22.3.1986 the land has been recorded in the name of the petitioners and consequently have clearly stated that though the application has been filed belatedly, but the applicants therein have no knowledge of the order dated 22.3.1986 and prayed for condonation of delay and also for recall of the said order. 8. The Consolidation Officer has also duly considered the application for conditional of delay and the reasons for the delay has been stated in the application for recall in paragraph nos. 7 and 8. At this stage it is relevant to state that the petitioners did not contest the said application by objecting the condonation of delay sought by the applicant and in the aforesaid circumstances, the Consolidation Officer by means of impugned orders have recorded the averments made in the application for recall and found that there was sufficient reason for condoning the delay specifically the fact that the applicant did not have any knowledge with regard to the order dated 22.3.1986 and further that his substantial rights were effected in as much as, it was claimed that there was he was in possession of the said land prior to Abolition of Zamindari and also that at the time of ancestor the house was existing and accordingly have proceeded to recall the order dated 22.3.1986. By recalling the said order it was further noticed that Gaon Sabha and the State Government were the necessary parties, in as much as, previously it is alleged that the land was recorded as Abadi. 9. The petitioners have assailed the aforesaid order merely on the ground that the delay has been illegally condoned by the Consolidation Officer. In support of his submission firstly, he relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sneh Gupta Vs. Devi Sarup and others (2009)6, Supreme Court Cases 194. In para 49 of the said judgment in the matter that condonation of delay has been condoned stating that the appellant has knowledge of the compromise decree and despite having knowledge the application was filed much belatedly. In facts of the present case distinguishable from the facts that he did not have any knowledge of the order dated 22.3.1986 and even this fact was never contested by the petitioners before the Consolidation Officer. 10. He has further relied upon the judgement in the case of Ram Prakash Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and others, Consolidation No. 6574 of 2016, decided on 03.02.2022; where the court was considering that the application for condonation of delay can be considered simultaneously in the appeal. The Court after considering the rival submissions held that originally first the application for condonation of delay has been considered and only thereafter the matter will be considered on merits, but the Bench has further held that both the issues can be dealt together. In the present case, I find that the aspect pertaining to condonation of delay has been dealt by the Consolidation Officer before considering the dispute on merits. In this regard I do not find that the Consolidation Officer has erred or committed any illegality. 11. It is for the aforesaid reasons, I find that the Consolidation Officer has duly considered the sufficiency of reasons for condonation of delay and having found that the delay was occasional for want of knowledge and could not move application for recall previously and hence proved for condonation of the delay. Once sufficient reason has been demonstrated before the Authorities, then he has sufficient power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to record the reasons and condoned the delay. It is further noticed that the private respondents have not shown sufficient interest in the matter, in as much as, they have failed to claim in possession of the property since very long time and also that a pucca construction was existing in the said land and accordingly substantial right has been effected, hence no order can be passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. 12. Apart from the above, petitioners would raise before the Consolidation Officer while considering his application which has been restored for hearing. 13. It is for the aforesaid reason, I do not have any reason for interfering and accordingly I am not considering the objections raised by the learned Standing Counsel with regard to non impleadment of the Gaon Sabha, which shall be considered by the Consolidation Officer in the proceedings before him. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Muk Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench