S. K. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) CHALLENGE in this petition is concurrent judgments of the Consolidation Officer, Assistant settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. This petition is delayed by one year and 190 days vide report of the Stamp Reporter. ( 2 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has been heard at admission stage. ( 3 ) SUBMISSION is that the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer is illegal and fraudulent as opposite parties got petitioners share reduced and the compromise was got entered illegally and in fact petitioner was not party in the proceeding and thus the compromise order being illegal was liable to be set aside but the appellate authority and the revisional court has dismissed the petitioners appeal and revision as barred by time. It is further submitted that in respect to various averments as made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner there is no specific denial by the opposite party in the affidavit and, therefore, that is to be treated as admission and thus petitioner was entitled for relief as prayed. In support of the submission that if the order is result of fraud and if it suffers inherent lack of jurisdiction the court has inherent jurisdiction to recall it, reliance has been placed on a decision given in the case of Budhia Swain and Ors. v. Gopinath Deb and Ors. reported in 1999 A. C. J. 1462. In support of the submission that if a plea or allegation has not been controverted it is to be treated as admission, reliance has been placed on a decision given in the case of P. N. Srivastava v. State of U. P. and Ors. reported in 1999 A. C. J. 255. ( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid the question is that whether dismissal of appeal and revision on the ground of delay which was filed after lapse of 22 years is justified ? ( 5 ) TO deal with the aforesaid submissions reference to the brief admitted facts will be necessary. After notification of the consolidation process in the village at the stage of the proceedings under section 9-A (2) of the U. P. C. H. Act parties right/share was decided in terms of the compromise vide order of the Consolidation Officer dated 18. 11. 1970. After notification of the consolidation process in the village at the stage of the proceedings under section 9-A (2) of the U. P. C. H. Act parties right/share was decided in terms of the compromise vide order of the Consolidation Officer dated 18. 11. 1970. Appeal was filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Consolidation Officer dated 18. 11. 1970 on 29. 6. 1992 i. e. after lapse of about twenty two years. The affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application was countered by the respondents. The appellate authority after dealing with the matter dismissed the appeal. Revision filed by the petitioner also failed and thus all the three judgments are against the petitioner. ( 6 ) NEEDLESS to say that in the matter of condonation of delay the courts are to take lenient view as it is to advance justice but at the same time it cannot be held as a rule that in each and every case although there is no satisfactory explanation or there is no bonafide on the part of the applicant, delay of any number of years has to be condoned in a routine manner. Thus facts of each case and explanation so given has to be examined, of course viewing the matter with liberal approach. So far the case in hand is concerned the order was passed by the Consolidation Officer in the year 1970. Even if we accept the explanation of the petitioner that initially he could not know about the order of the Consolidation Officer as he was in service although he used to come to the village from time to time in the vacations but on his own admission in para 6 and 7 of the affidavit in support of the recall application he came to village in the year 1988 then he came to know about the fraud of the opposite party and reduction of the land/area in his chak. It is said that he moved an application before the Consolidation Officer immediately but no action was taken. Thereafter it is said that in June, 1992 he again came in the village and then he filed appeal. The aforesaid explanation has been tested by the appellate authority and the revisional court that whether it can be believed or not. It is said that he moved an application before the Consolidation Officer immediately but no action was taken. Thereafter it is said that in June, 1992 he again came in the village and then he filed appeal. The aforesaid explanation has been tested by the appellate authority and the revisional court that whether it can be believed or not. Courts have given the reason that even if the period of 18 years i. e. from 1970 to 1988 is ignored but if the petitioner in the year 1988 came to know about the mischief of the opposite party then it could not be expected from a prudent person that he will not immediately pursue the matter and will file the appeal after four years. The explanation of filing of application before the Consolidation Officer in the year 1988 has been found to be false for the simple reason that nothing is available on record and no copy either typed of photostat or of any kind of the alleged application of 1988 which is said to have been moved before the Consolidation Officer was produced before the court. In view of the aforesaid the appellate authority has refused to condone the delay of about 22 years in filing the appeal as admittedly petitioner having knowledge of the order of the Consolidation Officer has chosen to go to the court after undue delay which was beyond comprehension. The version of the opposite party as has been given in the affidavit that petitioner used to come to the village and he came to know about the order of the Consolidation Officer was duly taken note of. In fact parties came into possession over their land after the order of Consolidation Officer and thus an observation has been made that as in the court room in the year 1978 there was a fire in which large number of files were burnt and thus it appears to take advantage of the aforesaid situation appeal was filed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also examined the matter in great detail and then concurred with the findings of the appellate authority. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also examined the matter in great detail and then concurred with the findings of the appellate authority. Various submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner about fraudulent order, reduction in the area and not party in the proceedings of Consolidation Officer are all on account of non availability of the record about which as the courts have refused to go into the merits after lapse of about 22 years this Court cannot take any exception. If the things have settled on the spot for such a long time and the party knowing about his rights fully well have chosen to keep quite for such a long span it cannot be helped. The things which stood settled cannot be permitted to be unsettled with the intervention of the Court as in the garb of claim of doing justice as argued by the learned counsel it may lead to injustice to the other party. It is also settled that while considering the question of delay the merits of the matter may not have much relevance and thus here is the case where after knowledge about the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, if appeal has been filed after several years reopening of the matter may not be in the ends of justice. On examination of the matter, in view of the analysis made above this Court is of the view that decisions on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel have no application to the facts of the present case. The order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer can not be said to be without jurisdiction and fraudulent as this Court has not been taken to any positive material so as to even infer about fraud having been played in passing the order passed by the authority and thus on the strength of decision as referred by the learned counsel situation is not to improve in any manner in favour of the petitioner. The court has recorded a finding on the question of fact and thus detailed finding as recorded in respect to sufficiency of cause being finding of fact having not been demonstrated to be arbitrary, perverse and vitiated in law in any manner, this Court is not in a position to interfere. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons recorded above this Court declines to interfere in the impugned order. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons recorded above this Court declines to interfere in the impugned order. Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. . .