S. K. SINGH, J. Heard Sri Shukla, learned Advocate in support of this petition and Sri Tripathi, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondent. 2. Challenge in this petition is the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. There is no dispute about certain facts and thus on brief notice writ petition is to be conveniently disposed of. 4. At the start of the consolidation, order was passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of some reconciliation. On coming to know after long delay, appeal was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed on two grounds (i) on the ground of limitation and (ii) it is filed after denotification under section 52 of U. P. C. H. Act. Revision filed by the petitioner has also dismissed and thus writ petition. 5. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has no notice about proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the compromise was result of fraud and was not in accordance with law and as and when petitioner came to know about that order he filed appeal and therefore, that was wrongly dismissed and at the same time revisional Court gave finding that both orders passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of reconciliation is not in accordance with law but maintained the order on account of delay and section 52 denotification, which on the fact cannot be said to be justified. 6. In response to the aforesaid, Sri Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that appeal was highly belated and therefore, if both Courts have dismissed the same then no exception can be taken to it. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is to decide the matter. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that appeal was delayed and it was filed after de-notification under section 52 U. P. C. H, Act and at the same time Deputy Director of Consolidation has given a clearly finding that order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was not in accordance with law and procedure of reconciliation was not followed thus that itself makes the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer to be illegal and, thus this being the situation delay met not be the matter. It is not to be emphasised that even after de-notification under section 52 of U. P. C. H. Act time barred appeal/revision etc. can be filed and on satisfactory explanation of delay, matter is to be examined on merits. 9. Needless to say, after close of consolidation proceeding claim of any party is said to be barred under section 49 of U. P. C. H. Act and therefore, if there is no decision by any authority on merits and at the same time Deputy Director of Consolidation has found that order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer is not be in accordance with law then this Court is of the view that giving of direction to the Consolidation Officer to decide the claim of parties on merits after giving opportunity to both sides , in accordance with law, within a time bound frame, will. be in the ends of justice. This Court is exercising equity powers and therefore, on the facts this Court is to interfere so that parties may get trial on merits and then a decision thereon. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by all the concerned/ authorities are hereby quashed. The matter is directed to be revived at the level of Consolidation Officer with liberty to both sides to file their respective objections and then on exchange of pleadings, after framing the issues and opportunity of evidence the Consolidation Officer will decide the claim of parties on merits by keeping in mind that matter is old and now that is not to be prolonged any more for no justified reasons. Both parties have undertaken before this Court not to take any unwarranted adjournment unless it is required for very compelling reason. Petition Allowed. .