JUDGMENT By the Court.—Leave granted. Heard the parties. 2. The appellants claim to be the owners in possession and enjoyment of the disputed agricultural land (Khata 106). According to them their father Mata Jatan, son of Jarbandhan acquired the said property and in the basic year of Akar Patra 5, the said land was recorded in their names. 3. The appellants allege that in the year 2005, the third respondent and others filed a suit for a permanent injunction against the appellants in O.S. No. 482/2005 and in the plaint there was a reference to an order dated 9.7.1980 of the Assistant Consolidation Officer as the basis of their claim to title as co-sharers to the disputed property. The appellants claim that thereafter they made enquiries and and found that one Anant Ram and Ram Sundar had filed objections before the Assistant Consolidation Officer claiming that their names should be entered as co-sharers of the land; that on the basis of an alleged farzi compromise, without hearing the appellants, the Assistant Consolidation Officer had passed an ex parte non-speaking order dated 9.7.1980 illegally introducing the names of Ram Sundar (son of Repu) and Anant Ram and Basant Lal (sons of Mata Sharan) as co-sharers alongwith the name of the appellants. They, therefore, filed an appeal before the Assistant Settlement Officer on 26.9.2005 against the order dated 9.7.1980. The appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation on 13.11.2006 and revision filed by them was also dismissed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation on 29.9.2007. Their writ petition challenging the revisional order was dismissed on 8.1.2008. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of Ram Sundar, respondents 3 to 7 and 13 are the legal heirs of Anant Ram and respondents 8 to 12 and 14 are the legal heirs of Basant Lal. 5. According to the appellants, appellant No. 2 was born blind and appellant No. 1 is an illiterate (who can only sign). They claim that they did not enter into any settlement, nor aware of the order dated 9.7.1980. 5. According to the appellants, appellant No. 2 was born blind and appellant No. 1 is an illiterate (who can only sign). They claim that they did not enter into any settlement, nor aware of the order dated 9.7.1980. They allege that Ram Sundar, Anant Ram and Basant Lal were not members of their family and they had committed a fraud and alleging some conciliation/compromise, had got their names entered as co-tenure holders in respect of Khata No. 106, without the knowledge or consent of the appellants. It is submitted by them that the order dated 9.7.1980 was passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in violation of the mandatory requirements of Rule 25A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (‘Rules’ for short) which inter alia requires : “In deciding disputes on the basis of conciliation in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 9-A, he shall record the terms of conciliation in the presence of at least two members of the Consolidation Committee of the village. These terms shall then be read to the parties concerned and their signatures or thumb impressions obtained. The members of the Consolidation Committee present shall also sign the terms of conciliation. The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall then pass the orders deciding the dispute in terms of conciliation specifying the precise entries to be made in the records. Details of the operative part of the orders passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall be noted in the Misilband register. No ex parte order or orders in default shall be passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer.” 6. In the appeal filed by the appellants before the Assistant Settlement Officer, the legal heirs of Ram Sunder (respondents 1 and 2) conceded that they had nothing to do with the land and that the order dated 9.7.1980 was based on forged documents and wrong representations. 7. The legal heirs of Anant Ram and Basant Lal (respondents 3 to 14) on the other hand contended that the appeal by the appellants was rightly rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer, in view of the enormous delay of about 26 years. They contend that the sons of Ram Sundar (respondents 1 and 2) were won over by the appellants. They allege that the parties all closely related. According to them one Repu had three sons Mata Sharan, Ram Sundar and Mata Jatan. They contend that the sons of Ram Sundar (respondents 1 and 2) were won over by the appellants. They allege that the parties all closely related. According to them one Repu had three sons Mata Sharan, Ram Sundar and Mata Jatan. Anantram and Basantlal are the sons of Mata Sharan. The appellants are the sons of Mata Jatan. They deny the claim of appellants that Mata Jatan was the son of Jarbandan and allege that Jarbandan who was the brother of Repu had died a bachelor. 8. We find that the Settlement Officer, Director of Consolidation and the High Court have have rejected the claim of the appellants only on the ground of limitation. None of them have considered the dispute on merits. 9. It is now well-settled that fraud unravels everything. It is not in dispute that the second appellant is born blind. Nor it is seriously disputed that appellant No. 1 is an illiterate. Their claim that the names of Ram Sundar, Anant Ram and Basant Lal were entered as co-sharers on account of a fraud and that they were unaware of it till 2006 is evident from the following circumstances : (i) the appellants continued in exclusive possession continuously even after 9.7.1980; (ii) the mandatory procedural requirements prescribed under Rule 25-A of the Rules for making an order based on settlement/conciliation, were not followed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and there is nothing to show that appellants were either present or admitted any compromise before him on 9.7.1980; and (iii) respondents 1 and 2 (the LRs. of Ram Sundar) admit the claim of the appellants and also admit that the order dated 9.7.1980 was passed on the basis of forged documents and misrepresentations. It cannot be disputed that at least in respect of entering of the name of Ram Sundar, in view of the admission by his legal heirs, the delay in filing the appeal had to be condoned. Be that as it may. As sufficient cause is shown for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, even though the delay is more than two decades, the delay ought to have been condoned. 10. We are of the view that the Assistant Settlement Officer committed a serious error by failing to condone the delay. The revisional authority and High Court ought to have corrected the error. 10. We are of the view that the Assistant Settlement Officer committed a serious error by failing to condone the delay. The revisional authority and High Court ought to have corrected the error. We do not however propose to examine the dispute on merits as that was not considered by any of the authorities or by the High Court. 11. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the orders of the High Court, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur and the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh. The delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority against the order dated 9.7.1980 is condoned. The appeal stands restored to the file of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Mirzapur, who shall consider and dispose of the appeal of the appellants on merits in accordance with law, with particular reference to Rule 25A of the Rules. ————