S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) The matter was taken up in the revision of list. The writ petition is of the year 1974 and therefore, it is to be heard and is to be decided.
(2.) Challenge in this petition is the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed as barred by time.
(3.) Proceedings are under section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which related to the adjudication of title between the parties. It is not to be emphasised that on finalisation of consolidation proceedings the claim of either of the sides in any other forum is barred under section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Thus, the proceedings being of settlement in respect to the rights, parties are to be afforded opportunity of hearing and decision on merits. If the case was fought out between the parties before the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation on merits then normally on the ground of limitation revision is not be dismissed unless serious lapses and negligence is proved. Here is the case where learned Counsel submits that delay was hardly of about two months, and therefore, observation of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that revision is highly barred by time appears to be totally unjust and arbitrary. Needless to say it has been repeatedly said by this Court and the Apex Court that in the matter of condonation of delay lenient view is to be taken so as to advance substantial justice between the parties. On the facts, this Court is satisfied that as delay is of about two months for which explanation so given was quite satisfactory, dismissal of revision by revising authority on the ground of delay is absolutely uncalled for. Petitioner has entitled for hearing of the matter on merits.;