DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, J. - (1.) Heard Dr. Ram Surat Pande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel representing the respondent No.3.
(2.) Under challenge in this petition is an order dated 16.02.2013, passed by the Consolidation Officer, whereby the application moved by respondent No.3 seeking condonation of delay in preferring the objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") has been allowed and the delay in preferring the objection has been condoned. The petitioner challenging the order passed by the Consolidation Officer had filed revision petition before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the said Act, which too, has been dismissed by the order dated 31.10.2018. The order dated 31.10.2018, passed by the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, Raebareli is also under challenge herein.
(3.) The facts of the case, which can be deduced from the pleadings available on record, are that undisputedly the recorded tenure holder of the land in question was one Manokamna. On his death, the land in question was recorded in the name of Shanti Devi and on the death of Shanti Devi, thereafter the land in question came to be recorded in the name of the petitioner under Section 33 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in Form P.A.-11.;