JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. Sri Prabhat Kumar, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of private respondent No.2-Peer Mohammad, which is taken on record.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners says that he may be permitted to implead the necessary parties in the memo of the petition.

4. The prayer is acceded.

5. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead the necessary parties, during course of the day.

6. In view of order proposed to be passed, notice to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is dispensed with.

7. By means of present petition, petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the respondent No.1-Additional District Magistrate/Deputy Director of Consolidation, District-Amethi, whereby respondent No.1 interfered in the order dated 15.10.2020 passed by the respondent No.6-Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi by which the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 21.11.1996 was rejected as also set aside the order dated 21.11.1996 passed by respondent No.5-Consolidation Officer, Raibareli.

8. Brief facts of the case, which are relevant for proper adjudication of the present case, are to the effect that the order dated 21.11.1996 was passed by the Consolidation Officer, Raibareli-respondent No.5 whereby the co-tenancy rights were provided by the Consolidation Officer in relation to Khata No. 39 to Abdul Bahab, Mohd. Jaheer and Mohd. Kayyum. It would be apt to clarify that petitioner No.1-Sagir Ahmad and respondent No.4-Mahmood Ahmad are the sons of Late Mohd. Jaheer and petitioner No.2-Shayda Begum, is the wife of Mohd. Jaheer.

9. The respondent No.2-Peer Mohammad S/o Late Abdul Bahab after coming to know about the order dated 21.11.1996 and being aggrieved by the same, filed an appeal alongwith application for condonation of delay before respondent No.6-Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi under Section 11 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"), registered as Appeal No. 154 of 2020. The application for condonation of delay was rejected by the respondent No.6-Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi vide order dated 15.10.2020. Consequently, the appeal was also rejected.

10. Being aggrieved, private respondent No.2-Peer Mohammad filed the revision under Section 48 (1) of the Act of 1953, which was registered as Revision No.386/408. In the revision, following prayer was sought:-

11. The revisional authority-respondent No.1- Additional District Magistrate/Deputy Director of Consolidation, District-Amethi allowed the revision vide its order dated 25.11.2022.

12. While assailing the impugned order dated 25.11.2022, Sri Vijai Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that to set aside the order dated 21.11.1996 private respondent No.2-Peer Mohammad took several pleas in the appeal before the respondent No.6 including the plea based upon the date of death of his father which were not considered on its merits by respondent No.6 as the appeal was rejected as a consequence of rejection of application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal after about 21 years of order appealed dated 21.11.1996.

13. Accordingly, the respondent No.1, revisional authority after considering various aspects of the case only in relation to the order passed on the application for condonation of delay dated 15.10.2020 passed by the respondent No.6 and thereafter interfering in the said order ought to have remanded the matter back to the respondent No.6 to decide the appeal on its own merits afresh. However, in the instant ca