JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. In my opinion, it is not a fit case where interference be made with the impugned judgment of the revisional court whereby the opposite parties have been given a chance to prove their claim. It is regrettable that the opposite parties filed objection in the matter after 12 years and the matter in writ has come up for hearing after 14 years. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to exercise my power under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner. Nobody would be condemned without hearing him regarding his claim. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not get a chance before the Consolidation Officer to contest the claim of the opposite parties so that an observation be made that this part again be dealt with by the Consolidation Officer. However, it would be open to the petitioner to raise all legal pleas before the Consolidation Officer, but it is made clear that the Consolidation Officer or any other authority would not decide the question of limitation only but they will deal with the cases of the parties on merit so that the claim of the parties may be finally heard and decided. 2. In the result, I do not find any merit in the writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. But it is made clear that the Consolidation Officer would deal with the contention of the parties strictly in accordance with law and in the light of observations made above. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.