Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46034 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 740 of 2025 Petitioner :- Anuj Kumar And Another Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Hardoi And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondents are dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that during consolidation proceedings U/S 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Acts, objections of the petitioner No. 2 were allowed and the share of petitioner NO. 2, respondent Nos. 3 & 4 were fixed. Against the order dated 01.04.2021, respondents filed an application of restoration on 11.01.2024 along with an application for condonation of delay after two years and 8 months. 4. The petitioner had filed his objections to the application for condonation of delay which has been allowed by means of order dated 25.11.2024 and even the application for recall has been allowed after holding that the previous order dated 01.04.2024 was passed ex-parte and the matter has been fixed for hearing after giving full opportunity to all the parties concerned. 5. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2024 have preferred a revision before the Dy. Director of Consolidation which has also been rejected by means of order dated 12.06.2025 and accordingly in the present case the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 12.06.2025 as well as order dated 25.11.2024. 6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the main plank of the argument of the petitioners is that the Consolidation Officer has condoned the delay in most illegal and arbitrary manner and the said aspect has not been duly considered by the Dy. Director of Consolidation in revisional proceedings and accordingly, the both the orders are liable to be set aside. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that the petitioners had participated in the proceedings wherein the application for recall was allowed by means of order dated 25.11.2024. The petitioners had also filed their objections on the application for condonation of delay where the fact that previous order dated 01.04.2024 was not in the knowledge of the private respondents was never controverted. He submits that it is in the aforesaid circumstances that there would not be any illegality or infirmity in the order dated 25.11.2024 allowing application for condonation of delay and also submits that the revisional authority has also considered this aspect of the matter while rejecting the revision. 8. Considering the rival submissions, it is noticed that initially on the application preferred by the petitioners, the order dated 01.04.2024 was passed granting shares in the disputed property in favour of the petitioners. Subsequently the application for recall was filed after nearly 2 years and 8 months before the Consolidation Officer. The delay in filing the application was duly explained where it was stated that the applicant did not have any knowledge of the order dated 01.04.2024. The petitioners had contested the application for condonation of delay and filed his objections. 9. It is noticed that in the objections filed by the petitioners it was clearly stated that each day delay has to be duly explained and the delay having not been explained, the said application was liable to be dismissed. It is noticed that it was clearly stated in the application of condonation of delay that the applicant did not have knowledge and this Court finds that the said fact was never controverted by the petitioner in his objection filed on 14.10.2024. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the delay was condoned and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said order considering the fact that there was no other material available before the Consoldaiton Officer to take any different view of the matter. 10. Apart from the above, the aspect that the order dated 01.04.2024 was an ex-parte order where the private respondent was not heard is also not controverted inasmuch as even the notices were not issued to them in the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer on the previous occasion. Accordingly, the Dy. Director of Consolidation also did not find any infirmity in the revisional proceedings. 11. Considering the aforesaid submissions and also perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the delay was rightly condoned by the Consolidation Officer while hearing the application for recall. The said application was further allowed considering the fact that the order dated 01.04.2024 was passed ex-parte and notices had not been issued to the private respondents and this Court finds that the matter has been fixed for hearing where the Consolidation Officer shall passed fresh orders after hearing all the parties. In light of the above, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the impugned order. The writ petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed. 12. Let the proceedings be concluded by the Consolidation Officer with expedition after giving full opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned within four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 13. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench