Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Shri for the petitioner.
(2.) Facts giving rise to the dispute are as under:- On death of Dulari Devi, the recorded tenure holder, an application under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) was moved by respondent no. 2 seeking mutation of his name. Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 16.05.1978 allowed the application. After about 30 years, the petitioner claiming to be the husband of the recorded tenure holder Dulari Devi moved a belated appeal challenging the order dated 16.05.1978. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal was also moved. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 24.10.2008 by a composite order condoned the delay, allowed the appeal and directed the land in disputed to be recorded in the name of the petitioner. Respondent no. 2 went up in revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 27.05.2009 allowed the revision and remanded the case back to the Settlement Officer Consolidation to hear and decide the delay condonation application first before proceeding to decide the appeal on merits.
(3.) It is contended that delay was rightly condoned and thereafter the Settlement Officer Consolidation rightly decide the appeal on merits and the said order has wrongly been upset by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It has further been submitted that condonation of delay by a court is discretionary and once the discretion had been exercised by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, it was not open for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have interfered in the exercise of the said discretion.;