Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Pradeep Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

In this writ petition, the validity of the order dated 16.8.2012 passed in Revision No. 97 (Lalanjoo v. D.D.C. and others) has been challenged. While assailing this order, Sri Pradeep Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the order dated 13.1.2009 was passed after due notice to the otherside. In his submissions, a notice was pasted, therefore it was sufficient service on the respondents. He has further contended that highly belated application for recall of the order dated 13.1.2009 was filed which was accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and there was no explanation for condoning the delay but the Consolidation Officer has not only condoned the delay but also recalled the order dated 13.1.2009. The petitioner filed revision that too has been dismissed without addressing on the question of service as well as limitation. In his submissions, the orders impugned are perfectly illegal and deserves to be quashed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of writ petition.

The facts giving rise to