HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 942 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Ms. Simi Jha, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vijay Prakash Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that present dispute pertains to old Gata No. 1421 min (new Gata No. 657) which was recorded in the name of mother of the petitioners namely Phulwa Rani W/O Chandrika Prasad in the revenue records. 4. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that during consolidation operations the Assistant Consolidation Officer by an order gave land of Gata No. 1421/1 min to respondent no. 4 while new chak was numbered as Chak No. 657 min area 0.0161 hectares. The dispute has arisen on account of the fact that the disputed land is situated on road side and at the bank of canal. It is during consolidation operations that mother of the petitioner preferred objections under Section 9B of Consolidation of Holdings Act relating to Gata No. 1421/1min, area 0.170 hectares situated at Village - Jaichandpur, Pargana - Ekauna, District - Shrawasti alongwith delay condonation application. On the said application, notices were issued to the private respondent. The objections of the mother of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vijay Prakash Srivastava, Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Manohar Lal @ Ram Manohar And Another .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Bahraich And Others .....Respondent(s) petitioners were allowed by means of order dated 04.01.2012, and in compliance of which application under Rule 109 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was preferred and appropriate orders on the same were passed on 28.01.2013. It is stated that after a period of 12 years, respondent no. 4 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), alongwith the said appeal an application for condonation of delay was also preferred and same was condoned by means of order dated 28.04.2025. 4. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order by which delay was condoned, preferred revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which revision was rejected by means of order dated 25.07.2025 and accordingly, orders dated 28.04.2025 and 25.07.2025, have been assailed in the present writ petition. 5. Perusal of order dated 28.04.2025, passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), would indicate that he considered the case of the appellants who have stated that proceedings were initiated by the petitioners after publication of notice under Section 52 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and they were never made party and orders were obtained behind their back and when the proceedings under Rule 109(Ka)(1) were being carried out, that the private respondent came to know about the previous order and accordingly appeal was preferred. 6. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the appellate authority had condoned the delay considering the fact that delay was to be computed from the date of knowledge and in the previous proceedings notices were never served upon them and no opportunity of hearing was given. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered the aforesaid aspect and has found that application for condonation of delay is in interlocutory order and accordingly against such an order revision is not maintainable. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has not erred in allowing the application for condonation of delay while the Deputy Director of Consolidation has erred in rejecting the revision on the ground of maintainability inasmuch as revision would not be maintainable against an order condoning the WRIB No. 942 of 2025 2 delay in filing appeal. Accordingly, it is stated that on conjoint reading of both the orders would indicate that same are illegal and arbitrary. 8. Considering the rival submissions it is noticed that by order dated 28.04.2025, the appellate authority had found that proceedings were initiated by the petitioners without making appellant party, nor any notices were issued to them and accordingly, they came to know about the said order only when execution proceedings under Section 109A of the Consolidation of Holdings Rules were under way. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, considering the fact that private respondent was not aware of the said proceedings, had condoned the delay. 9. Even if, for a moment revisional order is ignored, which has rejected the revision on the ground of maintainability, this Court finds that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had duly applied its mind to the facts of the case and condoned the delay. 10. There is no denying the fact that the private respondent was never issued notices or was afforded opportunity of hearing before the Consolidation Officer and therefore, initially he was not aware and only when he came to know about the proceedings, he filed appeal. 11. Apart from the above, this Court finds that the proceedings are pending before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) where the petitioners would have full opportunity to contest the case on merits. 12. Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, no ground for interference is made out. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) may be directed to decide the proceedings with expedition. 14. Learned Standing Counsel does not oppose the above prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 15. Accordingly, let the proceedings before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) be concluded expeditiously, say within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. WRIB No. 942 of 2025 3 16. The petitioners undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). September 26, 2025 A. Verma WRIB No. 942 of 2025 4 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench