JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - This petition is directed against the order dated 25-2-87 passed by the Consolidation officer, recalling his earlier order dated 29-12-83 whereby he had directed that the objection filed by the contesting respondent No. 3 Tribeni, be consigned to the record room and directing that the matter be decided on merits between the parties. This order has been affirmed in revision by the Dy Director of Consolidation. 2. It appears that an application was placed before the Consolidation Officer purporting to have been moved on behalf of Tribeni on 29-12-83 stating that he was ill-advised to file the objection against the entries existing in favour of the petitioners and that consequently his objection be dismissed and the basic year's entries retained. Upon this application, the Consolidation Officer passed an order the same day rejecting the objection filed by Tribeni and directing that the case be consigned to the record room. On 20-8-86 Tribeni filed an application before the Consolidation Officer stating that he had heard rumours in the village that his objection has been disposed of on the basis of some fictitious compromise and that he accordingly desired to inspect the record. On the inspection of the record, an application was filed by Tribeni disowning the aforesaid application dated 29-12-83. it was asserted that he had neither signed that application nor had he engaged any counsel of the name of Sri Suresh Pandey. It was stated that Sir Survir Singh was his counsel throughout and that any order passed upon that application was not binding on him. He consequently prayed that the same be recalled. This application was contested by the petitioners both on the ground that the same was barred by limitation as well as on the ground that Tribeni had in fact moved that application for the withdrawal of his objection. 3. The Consolidation Officer, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the matter, came to the conclusion that the application filed by Tribeni was within time and that, in substance, the order dated 29-12-83 was an ex parte order, having been passed upon an application for withdrawal and not an application for compromise. After holding that the application was within time, the Consolidation Officer recalled his order dated 29-12-83 and directed that the matter be disposed of on merits. As mentioned above, this order has been affirmed in revision. 4. After holding that the application was within time, the Consolidation Officer recalled his order dated 29-12-83 and directed that the matter be disposed of on merits. As mentioned above, this order has been affirmed in revision. 4. Sri R.C. 'Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the application filed by Tribeni was barred by Limitation and that the Consolidation Officer was wrong in holding otherwise. Alternatively, he submitted that in any case the order dated 29-12-83 could not legally be recalled without recording a finding whether the pica of Tribeni that he had not filed the application upon which the order dated 23-18-83 was passed, was true or false. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer with regard to the question of delay in the exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The alternative submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, deserved serious consideration. Neither the Consolidation Officer nor the Dy. Director of Consolidation made any attempt to examine the basic question whether the case set up by Tribeni that he had not filed an application for withdrawal, was correct. It is apparent that if Tribeni had, in fact, voluntarily moved that application no fault could be found with the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 29-12-83 granting that application and dismissing Tribeni's objection on the ground that the same stood withdrawn. If, on the other hand, it is found that Tribeni had not moved that application and that he had not engaged Sri Suresh Pandey as his counsel who is supposed to have identified Tribeni, it is apparent that the order dated 29-12-83 passed by the Consolidation Officer would have to be recalled and the objection of Tribeni decided on merits. The case will, therefore, have to be remitted to the court below. It is, however, not necessary to send the case to the court of the Consolidation Officer. It will be appropriate that the matter is now examined by the Dy. Director of Consolidation himself in view of the fact that considerable time had already elapsed, for the decision of the aforesaid issue, namely, whether Tribeni had filed the aforesaid application dated 29-12-83 for the withdrawal of his objection. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Director of Consolidation himself in view of the fact that considerable time had already elapsed, for the decision of the aforesaid issue, namely, whether Tribeni had filed the aforesaid application dated 29-12-83 for the withdrawal of his objection. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation dated 30-3-87 is quashed except the finding on the question of limitation. The Dy, Director of Consolidation shall dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner according to law in the light of the observations made above within three months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is filed before him. The Dy. Director of Consolidation may, for the purpose of disposal of the revision, take such evidence as may be considered necessary for the decision of the limited issue referred to above.