Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48011 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 771 of 2025 Petitioner :- Taufeek Ahamad @ Taufeek Ali Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Pratapgarh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manuvendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Manuvendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3. 2. In view of the proposed order notice to private respondent is dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present dispute pertains to the property of Mohd. Salim and after his death the petitioner, who is his nephew, claimed entitlement of his property while, on the other hand, his wife Nazirulnisha @ Jayada has also claimed to be entitled to succeed the property of deceased Mohd. Salim. It has been submitted that in the memo of appeal preferred by Nazirulnisha @ Jayada it has been stated that she had filed an application under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H.Act but admittedly she could not appear on certain dates. Subsequently, when she went to the court she came to know that the matter has already stood decided by be means of order dated 18.4.2013. It is in aforesaid circumstances that she had filed an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was delayed by about 55 days and the said appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Consolidation Officer for determination afresh by means of order dated 3.2.2016. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 3.2.2016 a revision was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has also been rejected vide order dated 26.6.2025 after noticing the fact that the matter already stands remanded to the Consolidation Officer. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has illegally allowed the application under Section 5 of Consolidation of Holdings Act despite the fact that there was no material on record or any fact submitted by the private respondents with regard to the delay in filing the appeal. He submits that it was the duty of Settlement Officer of Consolidation to have condoned the delay and only thereafter entered into merits and decided the matter on merits and consequently it is for the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the petitioner filed revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation. 6. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that a perusal of the appeal itself would indicate that adequate reasons has been submitted by private respondents with respect to the delay in filing the said appeal. Considering the reasons no infirmity or error has been committed by learned Settlement Officer of Consolidation in condoning the delay and remanding the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for determination afresh. 7. Considering the rival submissions, it is noticed that in the appeal itself the appellant/ opposite party has submitted that she was a literate person and that though she had filed the said appeal but she could not appear on certain dates and subsequently she could not be informed about the next date of listing of the said appeal and it is for the aforesaid reasons that she could not participate in the appellate proceedings and subsequently when she she came to know about the appeal she found that the appeal already stood decided by means of order dated 18.4.2013. A perusal of the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation indicates that though he has condoned the delay but the said facts on the basis of which the application for condonation of delay has been allowed has not been mentioned. 8. We have considered the grounds taken by the respondents in the appeal and find that satisfactory explanation was given for the delay in filing the the appeal of 55 days. Apart from the above, we find that the delay was not extremely long which may indicate that the appeal was deliberately filed with the delay to keep the matter lingering. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that sufficient facts were indicated in the appeal apart from which we find that the said facts remained controverted and no objection was filed by the petitioner agaisnt the reasons given for condoning the delay. 9. We also find that Deputy Director of consolidation has also considered the entire facts and was of the considered opinion that the matter has not been decided on merits by the Consolidation Officer. He has categorically recorded that due opportunity of hearing was not given to the private respondents and, therefore, there is miscarriage of justice and hence the revisional authority was also of the view that the matter ought to have been decided on merits after giving full opportunity of hearing to either of the parties, rejecting the revision upholding the order of remand. 10. This Court has also examined the aforesaid facts and finds that firstly the delay was rightly condoned by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and sufficient material was available to exercise the discretion in this regard. Apart from the above, we find that there is no infirmity in the findings that the parties were not adequately considered or given opportunity to lead evidence and, therefore, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rightly remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The petition is bereft of merits of and is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 18.8.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench