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 w