Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri V.K. Singh learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.D. Misra appearing for contesting respondents.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details the facts relevant for the purposes of the case are that dispute with regard to land in dispute between the parties regarding basic year entry was decided by this Court in Writ Petition No. 39397 of 1994 with a direction to the parties to file objection under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the ''Act') within a period of three weeks from the date of judgment. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed an objection on 30.8.1996 with some delay. An application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay was also filed. The explanation submitted for delay was that the petitioners are semi-literate persons having no legal knowledge could not understand the judgment. They had handed over the judgment to the local counsel who did not suggest them to file the objection as such the same could not be filed within time. It was only when the local counsel advised them to file the objection the same has been filed.
(3.) The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 4.11.1996 finding the cause to be sufficient condoned the delay and allowed the application on payment of Rs. 200/- as cost. Aggrieved, contesting respondents filed a revision. The revisional court vide order dated 29.3.1997 allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer condoning the delay. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court.;