R. H. ZAIDI, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 7. 9. 1979 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the village where the land in dispute is situated, came under the operation of the U. P. Consolidation of holdings Act (for short "the Act"), in the year 1965-66. In the basic year, name of the petitioner was recorded over the land in dispute in the revenue papers. Respondent No. 2, Smt. Khedani, since deceased, filed two objections claiming that she was the owner-in-possession of the said land and that the name of the petitioner was liable to be expunged from the revenue papers. The said objections were filed after inordinate delay, that too without an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay. What other pleas were taken in the said objection, are not known in as much as neither along with the writ petition nor with the counter-affidavit nor with the rejoinder-affidavit copies of the said objections have been filed by the parties ; but it is certain that delay in filing the objection was sought to be explained, as it is evident from the material on the record. The Consolidation Officer took the view that the objections were filed beyond the time prescribed under the law, no separate application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was filed, therefore, there was no question of granting benefit under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was also observed that the affidavit filed in support of the objections was insufficiently stamped. The objections were, therefore, legally not maintainable. Having recorded the said findings, the objections filed by smt. Khedani were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer by his judgments and orders dated 28. 7. 1975 and 8. 8. 1975. Challenging the validity of the orders passed by the Consolidation officer, two appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by Smt. Khedni. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation also affirmed the findings recorded by the Consolidation officer and dismissed the appeals by his judgments and orders dated 1. 12. 1975. 7. 1975 and 8. 8. 1975. Challenging the validity of the orders passed by the Consolidation officer, two appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by Smt. Khedni. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation also affirmed the findings recorded by the Consolidation officer and dismissed the appeals by his judgments and orders dated 1. 12. 1975. Respondent No. 2 thereafter filed two revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation challenging the validity of the orders passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, which were registered as revision Nos. 55 and 167. The Deputy Director of Consolidation reversed the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and without condoning the delay, set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh after deciding the objections raised by the petitioner regarding limitation and on merits, by his judgments and orders dated 7. 9. 1979. Hence the present petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that judgment and order passed by the deputy Director of Consolidation is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction in as much as he had no jurisdiction to set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and to direct them to decide the case on merits without condoning the delay in filing the objections. It was also urged that the deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to act as the Consolidation Officer or as the settlement Officer, Consolidation and to substitute his own findings for the findings recorded by the authorities below. It was also urged that without condonation of delay, he had no jurisdiction to remand the case. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondent supported the validity of the order and has submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Director of consolidation was an order of remand which was just and equitable. The effect of the said order would be that the parties shall have an opportunity to place their cases before the Consolidation officer properly, firstly on the question of delay and if the delay is condoned, then on merits. Thus, justice will be done in the case. ( 4 ) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 5 ) THE operative portion of the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director of consolidatton is quoted below :. . Thus, justice will be done in the case. ( 4 ) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 5 ) THE operative portion of the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director of consolidatton is quoted below :. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . ( 6 ) FROM the aforesaid order. It is apparent that the case has been remanded to the Consolidation officer for decision afresh on the point of limitation and if the delay is condoned, then on merits. As stated above, along with the writ petition copies of the objections have not been filed but from the reading of the orders passed by the authorities below, it is clear that respondent No. 2 has explained the delay in the objections which were supported by an affidavit. In case the affidavit was not properly stamped, respondent No. 2 should have been afforded an opportunity to make good the deficiency in court fee. It was not open to the Consolidation Officer to dismiss the objections straightaway holding that affidavit was not properly stamped. It is no doubt correct that Section 53b of the Act provides that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation act will have application in the consolidation proceedings. But, in the Act or the Rules framed there under, it has no where been provided that it is necessary to file a separate application for condonation of delay. The delay may be explained in the objection itself and prayer may be made for condonation of delay. In Ram Charan and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors. 1982 RD 109, it was held by this Court as under : "nowhere in the Act or under the Rules, it is provided that separate applications for condonation of delay should be filed while filing the objection under Section 9a (2) of the Act. The consolidation authorities can even without an application being filed under Section 5 of the limitation Act, condone the delay, if sufficient grounds are shown for the same. In exercising the jurisdiction for condoning the delay under Section 5, the only prerequisite condition is that there would be sufficient cause shown for condoning the delay. " ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the views taken to the contrary by the consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation are erroneous. In exercising the jurisdiction for condoning the delay under Section 5, the only prerequisite condition is that there would be sufficient cause shown for condoning the delay. " ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the views taken to the contrary by the consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation are erroneous. The Apex Court and this Court have taken liberal view in so far as condonation of delay is concerned. By the impugned order, justice will be done between the parties in as much as they will have opportunity to place their case before the authority concerned and the authority below shall be at liberty to decide the cases afresh in accordance with law. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion and the case law, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. ( 9 ) THE writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs. .