Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Ram Swaroop Singh, alongwith Sri Shivakant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.1.2013 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short, ‘DDC’) in revision No. 156 (Bodda v. Raghuvir and others), by which the DDC has dismissed the revision of the petitioner holding it as not maintainable.

2. While assailing this order, Sri Singh contends that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has erred in condoning the delay of 23 years in the appeal filed by the other side challenging the order dated 23.3.1987 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. It is also contended that the delay was condoned ignoring the objection to the delay condonation application. The DDC has dismissed the revision on the ground that the revision, being against an interlocutory order, is not maintainable. In the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, an order condoning the delay in filing the appeal would fall in the ambit of final order and not interlocutory order and revision would be maintainable.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal with a liberty to respondent Nos. 4 to 7 to file an application for recall, variation or modification of the order, which is being passed today.

4. The facts giving rise to this case are that it appears, against the order dated 23.7.1987 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, an appeal was filed in the year 2012, being appeal No. 121. The said appeal was barred by time, therefore, an application for condonation of delay was also filed. The other side has filed an objection on the ground that appeal was not maintainable after notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short, ‘the Act’). It was also contended that 23 years delay has not been properly explained. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation, ignoring the petitioner’s objection, has condoned the delay vide order dated 8.8.2012. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner herein has filed revision, which was numbered as revision No. 156. The learned DDC dismissed the revision as not maintainable being against an interlocutory order.

5. For appreciating the controversy in hand, it would be useful to look into the provisions contained under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act and explanation (2) thereto, which confers a right of revision under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The same is reproduced hereinunder:

“48(1). The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than an interlocutory order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, made such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit.

Explanation (2).—For the purposes of this section thte expression ‘interlocutory order’ in relation to a case or proceeding, means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect to finally disposing of such case or proceeding.”

From the perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act, it would transpire that the revision would be maintainable against any order except interlocutory order and the interlocutory orders have been explained in explanation (2), which means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect to finally disposing of such case or proceeding.

The literal meaning of the word