- (1.) Heard Sri Kapish Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Brijendra Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent no.4.
(2.) This petition challenges the order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act against the order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, has been dismissed. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Faizabad whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent no.4 under Section 11 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been allowed and the order dated 14.11.1982 passed by the Consolidation Officer has been set aside.
(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation without condoning the delay and without adequately dealing with the issue of delay in filing the appeal has allowed the appeal by the order dated 12.11.2013. His further submission is that appeal by the respondent no.4 against the order dated 14.11.1982 was preferred with sufficient delay on 12.11.2013 and there does not appear to be any plausible reason which could explain such delay in preferring the appeal even though neither the Settlement Officer, Consolidation nor the Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered the aforesaid aspects of the matter which vitiates the order impugned herein.;