S. K. SINGH, J. Heard Sri R. S. Misra and Sri Gaur, learned Advocate in support of this writ petition and Sri Srivastava. learned Advocate who appeared for respondent No. 4. Service on respondent No. 5 is by refusal. 2. Pleadings are complete. Writ petition is of the year 1994, listed peremptorily, as submitted, is being heard and is being decided. 3. Writ petition arises out of the proceedings under section 9-A (2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The dispute is in respect to Plot No. 639/2 and 633/31 which were recorded in the basic year in the name of Kanhaiya and Jeewa Ram. Kanhaiya is no more and he is represented through respondent No. 5 and Jeewa Ram respondent No. 4 here. The dispute came to be in existence at the start of the consolidation proceedings about rights in respect to the land in dispute which is said to have been claimed by the petitioner side on the basis of adverse possession as submitted by the respondent side which prima facie appears from the record also. Be as it may, matter travelled up to this Court in special appeal in relation to the technical aspect and it is ultimately matter came to be revived before the Consolidation Officer for its decision on merits, in accordance with law. Consolidation Officer has rejected the objection on the merits in respect to the claim of the petitioner by order dated 27. 3. 1985. Appeal was filed by the petitioner. In appeal amendment was sought in the memo of appeal adding certain grounds to dislodge claim of the respondent side. Besides amendment in the memo of appeal a detailed application was given giving complete details in support of the amended plea so sought by way of memo of appeal. That application is dated 10. 9. 1987. Settlement Officer Consolidation rejected that application by order dated 31. 5. 1988 upon which petitioner challenged that order by filing revision which was ultimately allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by its judgment dated 24. 2. 1990. After allowing the revision permitting/approving the amendment in the memo of appeal, matter was again placed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. It is to be noted here that no challenge was made against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 24. 2. 1990. 2. 1990. After allowing the revision permitting/approving the amendment in the memo of appeal, matter was again placed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. It is to be noted here that no challenge was made against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 24. 2. 1990. When the appeal before appellate authority revived petitioner side filed bulk of documents which are numbered as 1 to 14 as mentioned in the appellate order. It is mentioned in the appellate order that no document whatsoever in rebuttal was filed by the respondent side. On consideration of the matter appellate authority dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 23. 2. 1993, and thereafter, revision filed by petitioner was also dismissed by order dated 26. 7. 1994 and thus to challenge the aforesaid orders this writ petition. 4. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority after judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 24. 2. 1990 permitting/approving the amendment in the memo of appeal was required to consider and give finding either way on the merits of the amended grounds but the appellate authority although has made observation that there appears to be some mistake in the map etc. which appears from the document so filed but as sufficiently long time has already passed if the matter is kept pending on that score and that will not be in the interest of respondents, proposed to dismiss the appeal, which on the facts cannot be said to be justified. Submission is that detailed facts were given before the appellate authority by means of amendment by which it was brought to the notice of the Court supported by document that area of petitioners land/plot i. e. Plot No. 633/23 has been wrongly spitted into further sub plots and the area of the petitioners land has been wrongly included in the land of the respondent and therefore, this being the crucial aspect although it was not taken at the first instance when the consolidation proceedings started but as technicalities in the consolidation proceedings is not to come in the way it was obligatory on the part of the appellate authority to have considered this aspect and to have given finding either in favour or against the petitioner specially when this amendment was permitted/approved by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Submission is that on account of non consideration of the aforesaid aspects petitioner has suffered prejudice and in fact appellate authority can also be held to be not justified in not accepting the verdict of the Deputy Director of Consolidation which can be also said to be judicial impropriety. Submission is that Deputy Director of Consolidation also having noticed all these things refused to consider this aspect although he was exercising co-ordinate jurisdiction in respect to earlier order passed by his predecessor and thus on these facts matter needs to be remitted to the appellate authority for taking fresh decision keeping in mind details/facts which have been brought on record by means of amendment after entertaining whatever objection which may be from the respondent side in respect to the claim of the petitioner. 5. In response to the aforesaid, Sri Srivastava, learned Advocate submits that amendment so sought/allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was admittedly only in respect to the ground of appeal and that cannot take the place of amendment in the pleading so as to enable the petitioner to get this consideration on the merits. It was then submitted that appellate authority was only required to consider the merits and legality/illegality in the judgment of the Consolidation Officer irrespective of the amendment so allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Lastly, it has been submitted that the evidence which has been filed by the petitioner side after judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 24. 2. 1990 being against the pleading was not required to be taken into consideration and thus if on these facts, appellate authority and the revisional Court have dismissed the appeal and revision then no exception can be taken to it. Submission is that on the facts after such long time on the ground so taken if revival of the appeal is permitted then that will not be in the ends of justice and the respondent side is to suffer serious prejudice and therefore, writ petition merits dismissal. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is to decide the claim of parties. 7. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is to decide the claim of parties. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that the amendment in the memo of appeal so sought was not at earlier stage of the litigation/pleading and that can be said to be the reason for claiming amendment in respect to the claim which was tried/ placed by means of memo of appeal. 8. Irrespective of the fact to accept the amendment in the pleading or to accept the amendment in the ground/ claim, the fact remains that the Deputy Director of Consolidation by its judgment dated 24. 2. 1990 after setting aside the order of the appellate authority rejecting the move of the amendment permitted/approved the amendment so sought by the petitioner. On record the amendment application and details brought by means thereof is there. Perusal of the facts so stated in the amendment application and the details sc brought makes a clear pleading that sub spatial portion/part of the land owned by the petitioner i. e. Plot No. 633/23 has beer wrongly shown during portal and otherwise in the land/holding of the respondent. Several documents which are numbered as 1 to 14 as is mentioned in the judgment of the appellate authority were filed after approval of the amendment, apparently for the purpose to justify/establish the claim so laid/placed by means of amendment. Perusal of the judgment of the appellate authority makes it clear that after noticing the allowing of the amendment and after noticing the documents so filed and even after mentioning that to the documents no rebuttal has been filed and at the same time after finding some flaw in record the claim which was subsequently so taken was declined to be examined on merits solely on the ground of long lapse. According to the appellate authority, if that is done then that is to cause prejudice to the respondent. Deputy Director of Consolidation having noticed rejection of the amendment by order of the appellate authority dated 31. 5. 1988 appears to have been taken care of the subsequent development i. e. allowing of the revision against that order of the appellate authority by his predecessor and thus this Court cannot say that whether this was in the mind of the Deputy Director of Consolidation or not that the amendment so sought by the petitioner was earlier approved. 5. 1988 appears to have been taken care of the subsequent development i. e. allowing of the revision against that order of the appellate authority by his predecessor and thus this Court cannot say that whether this was in the mind of the Deputy Director of Consolidation or not that the amendment so sought by the petitioner was earlier approved. The approach of the appellate authority in not going into the merits of the amended claim even by means of amendment in the memo of appeal is clearly faulty for the simple reason that once Deputy Director of Consolidation approved amendment in respect to the claim which was placed by means of amendment in the memo that was required to be touched on the merits by the appellate authority irrespective of its acceptance on merits or its rejection on technical ground whatever it may be. It was obligatory on the part of the appellate authority to have accepted the mandate of the Revisional Court who was higher in the hierarchy. As order of the Revisional Court was not challenged and documents having been admitted/accepted after order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, they were required to be dealt on their own merit. It is not to be emphasised that in the consolidation proceeding there is no scope of technical aspect and otherwise also as and when technical side is in the way of doing substantial justice if there is a chance of a complete trial then the technicalities is normally to be kept apart in the consolidation proceeding for the simple reason that after close of consolidation claim of any party is to be barred under section 49 of U. P. C. H. Act. A party laying any claim in respect to any land within the purview of the consolidation operation cannot be permitted to raise any grievance/claim by subsequent proceedings either in the Civil Court or in the Revenue Court, thus the claim of the petitioner in respect to the land as placed before appellate authority which was although rejected by order dated 31. 5. 1988 but that having been permitted to be raised, in view of allowing of the amendment application was required to be dealt with on merits irrespective of its result. 5. 1988 but that having been permitted to be raised, in view of allowing of the amendment application was required to be dealt with on merits irrespective of its result. The consideration which prevailed in the mind of appellate authority i. e. lengthy litigation and its past cannot be said to be a valid consideration, and if that is accepted to be correct then the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the amendment which clearly means to hear on the amended claim will become redundant. By lapse of time the claim of a claimant can be negative from being considered if that is wholly inequitable or some great lapse on his part is attributed. But here is the case where by intervention of the Court i. e. by order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation something was to be tried/decided then that was required to be done in the manner so indicated. Refusal by the appellate authority and thereafter by the Revi-sional Court and dismissal of the appeal and revision without going into the merits appears to be not justified. Otherwise also submission of Sri Srivastava, learned Advocate that appellate authority was required to be dealt the legality and illegality of the order of the Consolidation Officer even if is accepted, cannot improve the situation, for the simple reason that perusal of the judgment of the appellate authority and that of the Revisional Court do not convince this Court that even on the merits what to say much, a reasonable analysis is there. After the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation when the matter came before the appellate authority then after noticing various details of the past and the documents so filed by the appellant side, appeal has been dismissed in a most sketchy and unsatisfactory manner and that happens with the Deputy Director of Consolidation also. Thus in view of the analysis made above, this Court is convinced that petitioner has made out a case for interference. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26. 7. 1994 and that of the appellate authority dated 23. 2. 1993 are hereby quashed. Appellate authority is directed to revive the appeal for being decided on merits in accordance with law without allowing any unwarranted adjournment to either of the sides preferably within a period of. The impugned judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26. 7. 1994 and that of the appellate authority dated 23. 2. 1993 are hereby quashed. Appellate authority is directed to revive the appeal for being decided on merits in accordance with law without allowing any unwarranted adjournment to either of the sides preferably within a period of. four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order from either of the sides. Petition Allowed. .