The main legal point established is that appeals or revisions can be filed after de-notification of the village, and the delay in filing such appeals or revisions can be condoned if justified.

The petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 31-1-2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Con solidation, respondent No. 1 whereby the revisions have been allowed and the delay in filing the objections has been condoned.

2. Briefly, stated the facts, are that the village Sonari, district Siddharth Nagar was notified under Section 4 of U. P. Con solidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short the Act ). In the basic year Khatauni, the names of Gopal Krishna Bansikar, respon dent No. 3, Anant Bansikar sons of Ram Narain and Sukhdeo Prasad son of Ram Dayal, respondent No. 2 over the disputed plots were recorded.

3. The version of the petitioner is that he was in possession over the disputed plots. He filed objection under Section 9-Aof the Act. The Consolidation Officer, fide order dated 28-1-1971 allowed the objection and passed an order to delete the names of the contesting respondents. This order, however, was not given effect to. The petitioner is alleged to have filed an application under Rule 109 of the U. P. Consolidation Officer on 28-1-1971. The Consolidation Officer allowed the ap plication vide order dated 15-9-1994 directing to make the entries in accord ance with the order passed by the then Consolidation Officer dated 28-1-1971.

4. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed Ap peal No. 1870 of 1998-99 on 25- 11-1998 against the order of the Consolidation Of ficer dated 28-12-1971 along with an ap plication to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Another Appeal No. 1869 of 1998-99 was filed against the order dated 15-9-1994 before the Settlement Of ficer of Consolidation. Both these appeals were dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 31-12-1999. Respon dent Nos. 2 to 4 filed two separate revisions against the orders passed by the Settle ment Officer of Consolidation. The petitioner filed an application on 27-12-2000 to decide the question of limitation first. Respondent No. 1 by the impugned order dated 31-1-2001 rejected the ap plication of the petitioner and directed that the revisions be heard on merits. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition.

5. I have heard Sri H. P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. K. Chitra Gupta, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the appeals and the revisions filed by the contesting respon dents were not maintainable. It is urged that the village was de-notified under Sec tion 52 of the Act vide Notification dated 3-3-1979 and after the said date neither any appeal nor any revision against any order passed by the consolidation authorities was maintainable. Admittedly Section 5 of the Limitation Act will be applicable to any appeal or revision filed before the consolida tion authorities. Section 53-B of the Act provides that Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to the applications, appeals or revisions under the proceedings under the Act or the Rules made thereunder. The question as to whether even after de-notification the ap plications, appeals or revision can be filed along with an application to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

7. In Bhagwati v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1983 ALJ 1250, it was held that an appeal or revision can be filed even after de-notification against an order which was passed prior to the date of the de-notification although the limita tion for filing the appeal or revision has already expired. In Mathani Singh v. Asstt. Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur, 1990 RD 258, it was held that a restoration application can be filed to set aside the ex-pane, order even after de-notification of the village under

Section 52 of the Act. In Radhey Shyam and another v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bhadohi and others, 1996 RD 231, an order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was sought to be recalled on the ground that it was ex-p