JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - By the impugned order dated 14-12-1990 the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision and remanded the Consolidation Officer. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that without condoning the delay the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision, whereas the Settlement Officer Consolidation has considered the question of limitation and held the appeal to be time barred. Reliance was placed on Teerath v. Joint Director of Consolidation, (1985 A.W.C. 347). 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Suffice it to say that in the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner the Joint Director of Consolidation has not applied his mind to the question of limitation. In the instant case in para 5 of the impugned order the Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered the question of limitation but not in so many words. It appears that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken a lenient view of limitation and has substantially condoned the same. In such matters, however, the order requires modification that instead of remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer, the case is to be remanded to the Settlement Officer Consolidation with a direction that he may consider the validity of compromise and decide the appeal afresh treating delay in appeal to be condoned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 4. With these observations the petition is dismissed summarily.