Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113762 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2622 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vijayi And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dileep Kumar Yadava Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents No. 1 to 4 and Shri Subedar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. By the impugned order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ghazipur the delay of four years in filing the appeal has been condoned and a direction has been made to decide the appeal on merits. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur by the order dated 25.04.2025 has upheld the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. While examining the issue of delay in filing the appeal the Court found that there were material differences in the signatures of one of the respondents Kanhaiya. The authorities below have held that the purported signatures of the said Kanhaiya appended to ordersheet of the Consolidation Officer were made by some other persons. Further the spot inspection on which reliance was placed was not in the ordersheet. The Courts below found that on the basis of said spot inspection, it could not be stated that Kanhaiya was present at the site. Further, the appellants (who are successors in interest of Kanhaiya) have also stated that they ordinarily reside outside the village. They became aware about the litigation only when they returned back to the village. The interpolations in the record in regard to which findings have been made against the petitioner could not be refuted from the records or the pleadings. Absence of the inspection report on which reliance was placed to show the presence of Kanhaiya also could not be disputed. It is common knowledge that a number of persons residing in the villages go out in search of work. It is not uncommon for such persons to lose connect with the pending litigations and consequently often lack of knowledge of the pending proceedings. These socio- economic realities cannot be overlooked by the Court. In this wake the cause for delay is satisfactory and the same was rightly condoned by the authorities below. This Court takes note of the fact that in a large number of cases the most marginalized sections of the society who live at intersection of various disabilities like acute poverty, widespread illiteracy, and social inequality are engaged in litigations under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Often the said classes of persons approach the court after delay due to their disadvantage. The consolidation authorities should take a liberal view in matters pertaining to delay in the facts and circumstances of each case and in light of socioeconomic realities of the State as discussed above. Generally speaking the endeavour of the authorities should be to adjudicate the controversy on merits, and not shut the doors of justice on hypertechnical grounds. In the instant case the authorities below by condoning the delay have adopted a view which is in consonance with law, equity and principles of equal justice. There is no infirmity in the impugned orders. Needless to add observations made by the authorities below in the impugned orders shall not influence the merits of the case. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Jaswant Digitally signed by :- JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad