JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Petitioners and respondents are real brothers and are claiming their respective shares from a sale-deed dated 02.02.1960 in regard to land in dispute situated in village- Nagla Dariyay, Mauja Salempur, Paragana Safai, District- Etawah.

2. The parties were in a cultivatory possession of their respective land. It was the case of petitioners that respondents were in possession of land in excess of their respective shares and in these circumstances, petitioners have filed an objection under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 i.e. after about 33 years of sale-deed. The relevant part of application is mentioned hereinafter :-

3. The Consolidation Officer has considered the above referred objections and vide order dated 27.08.1994 rejected the objections mainly on the ground that petitioners were failed to explain the extra-ordinary delay of more than 30 years by any reasonable ground.

4. The petitioners being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Etawah and the same was rejected vide an order dated 29.12.1995 on the ground that appeal was not maintainable against the order where objections were rejected only on ground of delay.

5. The petitioners further being aggrieved, have filed a revision petition before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Etawah, however, the same was also dismissed by impugned order dated 19.04.2023 mainly on the ground of being not maintainable since the order impugned was only in regard to rejection of application on ground of delay, however, there was rejection on merit also i.e. belated proceedings were barred under Section 11A and Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

6. Sri Sarvesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioners submits that they belong to rural background, therefore, they have no knowledge that at their back the respondents have committed a fraud and got entries recorded for land being more than their respective shares and when they came to know about such fraud, they approached the Consolidation Officer by way of filing an objection under Section 9A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, after more than three decade.

7. Learned counsel further submits that appeal as well as revision was dismissed on the ground being not maintainable against the order whereby belated objections were rejected on ground of delay only. The petitioners' case were not considered on merit that it was a case of fraud committed by the respondents.

8. The petitioners in order to give support to above submissions has placed reliance on a judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shankar and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 8 others , 2013 LawSuit(All) 2469 and Om Prakash v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 others , 2014 LawSuit(All) 651 that while considering the application for condonation of delay, approach of the Court or Authority should be lenient. Judgments passed by Supreme Court in the case of Collector (LA) v. Katiji , (1987) 2 SCC 107 and B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy , (2012) 12 SCC 693 , were also referred in support of his contentions, as well as that closure of consolidation proceedings by notification under Section 52 of the Act does not effect right, privilege, obligation or liability incurred during consolidation.

9. Per Contra, Sri Prabal Kumar Dixit, learned couns