Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents.

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and writ petition is being heard finally.

2. The prayer in the instant writ petition is for quashing judgment and orders dated 16.7.2001 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, District Bijnor, Annexure-3 to the writ petition and 17.5.2002 passed by Joint Director Consolidation , Muzaffar Nagar, Annexure-7 to the writ petition.

3. The property in dispute was originally enemy property which was purchased by petitioner along with some others vide sale certificate dated 26.5.1976 issued by the Custodian of the Enemy Property at Lucknow, U.P. This sale was never challenged at any stage but according to the petitioner, they came to know that their names have not been recorded in the revenue records though they were actual owners on the basis of Sale-Certificate dated 26.5.1976 and were in possession. When the consolidation proceedings commenced in the year 1990-91 of the village where the disputed land is situated only then it came to their knowledge that the name of the petitioner could not be mutated. An objection under Section 9(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was moved before the Consolidation Officer where the entry was challenged. The Sale-Certificate was produced before the Consolidation Officer who allowed the objections of the petitioner vide order dated 21.5.1994. Reliance was placed by the Consolidation Officer on a decision reported in 1987 RD, 17. It was held that consolidation Courts should enter the name of purchaser of the Enemy Properties if Sale Certificates issued by Custodian of Enemy Property in India is produced. It was also held that any objection regarding genuineness of the Sale Certificate can only be raised before the Custodian General and it can not be examined by the Consolidation Officer. In fact the limited power to the Consolidation Officer is to ascertain genuineness of the Sale Certificate. In the instant case, evidently, there was no contest or objection regarding genuineness of the said Sale Certificate. Accordingly name of the petitioner and 21 co-owners were recorded. Name of the petitioner was only for the portion mentioned in the original Sale Certificate issued by Custodian of Enemy Property. The State preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation challenging the order of the Consolidation Officer under Section 11(1) of the Act. During pendency of the appeal, two respondents namely Sri Naseebudin son of Shri Alibeg respondent No. 1 and Sri Raziul Hasan son of Sri Innayat respondent No. 21 expired. Applications were filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 2.6.1999 and 9.4.1999 in appeal bringing this fact to the notice of the opposite party. This fact is specifically mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. However, this has been denied in the counter affidavit.

4. Subsequently the State of U.P. as well as Gaon Sabha moved substitution application on 25.4.2001 after lapse of two years. The claim set up by respondents was that Sri Naseebudin died issueless as such the property should revert back to the State. The main grievance which revolves in the present writ petition is that this substitution application was filed after lapse of two years without any application for condonation of delay. No application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act or any assertion in the form of explanation on affidavit was filed alongwith substitution application. Substitution application and objection of the petitioner have been annexed as Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition. There is positive assertion in paragraph 5 that neither date of death of the deceased persons was mentioned nor date of knowledge. Perusal of application shows that there is an assertion that since the application to substitute deceased party was liable to be moved from the date of knowledge, therefore,