Sabhajeet Yadav, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by Dy. Director of Consolidation, Meerut in Revision No. 35 of 2003 (Kewal v. Sohan Lal and others) under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act.
(3.) By impugned order the objection filed by petitioners against the application moved by the respondents for condoning the delay in filing revision has been rejected. According to the petitioners' case, the revision was filed against the order dated 30.10.1980 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation after a lapse of 23 years. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that while filing said revision, the respondents did not satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay caused in filing of revision, accordingly the revision filed by respondents is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone.;