Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh appearing for respondent No. 3, who is contesting respondent in both the writ petitions.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 3 is only contesting party and other respondents being proforma respondents, the writ petition be decided without service to notice to other respondents.

3. Both the writ petitions raise similar question of law and facts and are being decided finally by this common judgment by consent of the parties.

4. These two writ petitions pray for quashing the order dated 20th September, 2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 as well as the order dated 16th November, 2004 passed by Consolidation Officer condoning the delay in objection filed by respondent No. 3. Writ Petition No. 58671 of 2007 is being treated as leading case.

5. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petitions are; respondent No. 3, Murlidhar, filed a belated objection under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 dated 23rd February, 2001 praying that by giving benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act the names of petitioners be expunged and names of contesting respondents be entered. Writ Petition No. 58671 of 2007 relates to Khata No. 293 and Writ Petition No. 8439 of 2008 relates to Khata No. 61. The objection of respondent No. 3 was contested by the petitioners by filing objection objecting condonation of delay. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 16th November, 2004 condoned the delay in filing the objection. Against the order dated 16th November, 2004 condoning the delay, revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order took the view that order of Consolidation Officer condoning the delay is interlocutory in nature, hence revision is not maintainable. The Deputy Director of Consolidation refused to interfere with the order of Consolidation Officer on the ground that order of Consolidation Officer is interlocutory in nature. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, challenging the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, contended that order of Consolidation Officer was not interlocutory in nature since it disposed of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which prayed for condonation of delay in filing objection. He has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1972 R.D. 80, Mst. Kailashi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others.

7. Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, submits that order of Consolidation Officer was interlocutory in nature and the revision was not maintainable. He has placed reliance on judgments of this Court in 2002(93) R.D. 764, Paras Nath v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti and others; 2003(94) R.D. 353, Sukhjinder Jeet Kaur and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rampur and others and 2004(97) R.D. 295, Dhanush Raj and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mau and others.

8. I have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. The objection, which was filed under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, was admittedly barred by time. The prayer for condonation of delay was separately taken up by the Consolidation Officer and was allowed after hearing both the parties. The effect of allowing application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was that objection was treated within time and was to be decided on merits. The revision was filed under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings A