JUDGMENT R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. In this writ petition, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Both the learned counsel are agreed that this writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage. Sri S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the revision filed by respondent no. 4 against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Fatehpur dated 24th May, 1990 was highly time barred. An application was also moved for condonation of delay. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Fatehpur has allowed revision without considering the application for condoning the delay. No order has been separately passed. Sri S.K. Singh has also submitted that the record of the case was not summoned before deciding this revision. Sri I.N. Singh learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, said that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has perused the documents before him and has passed orders on merit and there was no necessity of passing specific order for condoning delay. Delay, in the circumstances of the case, may be deemed to have condoned. I have given my serious consideration to the rival contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. In my opinion, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Fatehpur cannot be sustained. Firstly if there was delay and application was moved for condoning the same, it was obligatory on the respondent no. 1 to have passed an order on that application. Normally the authority cannot get jurisdiction to entertain the revision unleess the delay was condoned. The action of the respondent no. 1 could have been justified if the record of the case was summoned. In para 8 of the writ petition, it has been specifically stated that the record of the case was not summoned by respondent no. 1 before passing the impugned order dated 14th August, 1991. This averment in paragraph 8 of the writ petition has not been denied in reply made by the respondents. From perusal of the order also, it appears that the record was not before the respondent no. 1. Reasoning's recorded by the consolidation officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation have not been considered by Deputy Director of Consolidation. 2. In the circumstances, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 14th August, 1991 passed by respondent no. 1 is hereby quashed. 1. Reasoning's recorded by the consolidation officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation have not been considered by Deputy Director of Consolidation. 2. In the circumstances, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 14th August, 1991 passed by respondent no. 1 is hereby quashed. The respondent no. 1 shall treat the revision restored at Its original number and decide the same after hearing the parties in accordance with law. There will be no order as to cost.