A.P. Sahi, J;- The petitioners who were recorded in the basic year as the tenure-holders of the land in dispute have filed this writ petition questioning the correctness of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31st December 2010 as also the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 10th July, 2009 condoning the delay in filing the objections on the ground that the objection filed by the respondent no. 3 - Suryabali was heavily time barred and there being no occasion for condoning the delay, the Consolidation Officer erroneously passed the order dated 10th July, 2009 and accordingly the revisional order also suffers from the same error, hence, they deserve to be set aside. 2. The facts that have been given rise to the controversy appear to be that according to the admitted pedigree Ram Awatar had three sons, Kharpattu, Ram Jiyawan and Lurkhur. The respondent no. 3 Suryabali is the son of Ram Jiyawan. The respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are the grand sons of Kharpattu and the respondent no. 7 Smt. Murti Devi is the widow of late Kanhaiya another grand son of Kharpattu. 3. The petitioners are purchasers of the land through sale deeds of 1968 and 1971 from the predecessors in interest of the respondent nos. 4 to 7. Their names were entered in the basic year records. The consolidation operations commenced and the notification for filing objections under Section 9 was made on 19.8.1976. The respondent no. 3 - Suryabali filed an objection on 30th January, 1986 claiming that he was entitled to his share and his name should be recorded accordingly. It is this objection which was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay. The petitioners filed an objection on 22.8.2008 contending that the objection was heavily time barred and it should be rejected. 4. The respondent no. 3 relying on certain documents in relation to his identity as being the son of Ram Jiyawan including the extract of family register, voters list as also other documents, including the death certificate of Lurkhur and Ram Jiyawan, prayed for condonation of the delay. The Consolidation Officer after examining the Khatauni of 1363 to 1365 fasli corresponding year 1970-71 found that the name of Kharpattu, Ram Jiyawan and Lurkhur had been entered against Khata No. 183. The Consolidation Officer after examining the Khatauni of 1363 to 1365 fasli corresponding year 1970-71 found that the name of Kharpattu, Ram Jiyawan and Lurkhur had been entered against Khata No. 183. The petitioners had contested it on the basis of Khatauni of 1360 fasli which indicates their name against Khata No. 282. They also set up a claim that the property was not ancestral and had not been acquired by Ram Awatar. 5. The petitioners urge that Punwasi, Bhagelu and Kanhaiya the sons of Kharpattu were exclusive owners who have executed a valid sale deeds in favour of the petitioners. The consolidation Officer prima facie found the aforesaid assertions of the petitioners to be contradictory and not matching with the entries and even otherwise for almost more than 10 years the petitioners did not produce their original sale deeds. 6. Having assessed the situation the Consolidation Officer prima facie relied on the Ration Card, Voter List as well as other documents produced by the respondent no.3 - Suryabali to entertain his objection also on the ground that in case the delay is not condoned then the bar of Section 49 of Consolidation of Holdings Act would preclude the respondent no. 3 from asserting his rights for all times to come. Accordingly, the Consolidation Officer found it in the interest of justice to allow the delay condonation application and hear the objection on merits. The Consolidation Officer also noted that the petitioners have failed to produce any evidence to contradict the said status of the respondent no. 3 at that stage. 7. Against the aforesaid condonation delay order the petitioners preferred the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has now been rejected. Hence, this writ petition. 8. The contention raised by Sri Rai learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent no. 3 had full knowledge of the sale deeds, and the mutation of the names of the petitioners, and therefore the allegation that he came to know of it only in the year 1986, was without any basis. The delay having wrongly been condoned, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Sri Rai relies on the judgment of the apex court in the case of Smt. Ramti Devi Vs. Union of India, 1996 (27) ALR 74. 9. The delay having wrongly been condoned, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Sri Rai relies on the judgment of the apex court in the case of Smt. Ramti Devi Vs. Union of India, 1996 (27) ALR 74. 9. Sri Rai further submits that chaks have been carved out and the said objections were filed after a considerable unexplained delay. He further contends that no co-tenancy rights can be claimed and the respondent no. 3 had not filed any suit for cancellation of the sale deeds. As an alternative argument, Sri Rai further submitted that even otherwise if the matter proceeds on merits and if the respondent no. 3 succeeds, then too on equities he would be entitled to the consideration part of the sale deed as had passed on then to the extent of the claim of his share only, and hence the only remedy available to the respondent no. 3 was to file a civil suit. In essence the objection even on merits was not maintainable. 10. Sri Surendra Kumar Singh has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 3 who submits that the pedigree having not been disputed, the share of the answering respondent cannot be denied and the answering respondent had led prima facie evidence to substantiate his genuine and bona-fide claim. He further contends that an affidavit had been filed along with the objection clearly stating therein that the answering respondent was away from the village for a fairly long time in connection with his profession and employment, and Punwasi being the eldest amongst the cousin brothers was also looking after the land that was succeeded too by the answering respondent as well. It was only after they started avoiding giving documents in relation to the settlement proceedings, that the answering respondent had to file the objection on coming to know of the same. He further submits that having lost confidence, there was nothing left for the answering respondent but to file an objection, which he did upon coming to know of the said illegal transactions in the year 1986. Sri Singh therefore submits that the objection deserves to be decided on merits and the delay has rightly been condoned. He therefore prays that the revisional order and the order of the Consolidation Officer deserves to be affirmed. 11. Sri Singh therefore submits that the objection deserves to be decided on merits and the delay has rightly been condoned. He therefore prays that the revisional order and the order of the Consolidation Officer deserves to be affirmed. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the affidavit filed in support of the objection giving reason for the delay, it is evident that in Paragraph 10 of the affidavit the answering respondent had clearly stated that it was on account of his employment and professional engagement away from the village that he could not arrive in time to file the objection. The said paragraph has been replied by an affidavit, copy whereof is Annexure 14 to the writ petition where a denial has been made of the pedigree and Suryabali being not the son of Ram Jiyawan. In Paragraph 15 of the said affidavit it has been asserted that the respondent no. 3 is an imposter and therefore the plea that he was staying outside the village for several years in connection with his employment is a fact of no consequence. This fact of the respondent no. 3 staying outside away from the village in question has not been denied. The main emphasis was on the delay part. 12. There is another interesting feature of the case which also deserves to be taken notice of. One of the sons of Kharpatu, Bhagelu has also filed an objection virtually admitting the pedigree. Sri Rai submits that he has colluded with respondent no. 3 and is taking a dishonest stand. This issue also would require consideration on merits and therefore it was all the more necessary to have condoned the delay and allow the objection to be proceeded on merits. 13. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not come to the aid of the learned counsel, inasmuch as, this is a clear dispute of share and if the share is proved then prima facie the sale deed executed may be held to be void to the extent for which it may not be necessary to file a civil suit. The decision in the case of Smt. Ramti Devi (supra) therefore does not apply on the facts of the present case. The decision in the case of Smt. Ramti Devi (supra) therefore does not apply on the facts of the present case. On the contrary the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation Officer for supporting the condonation of delay clearly come to the aid of the respondent no. 3. 14. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the course adopted by the authorities in condoning the delay and entertaining the objection of the respondent no. 3. The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 15. The objection shall now be contested on merits before the consolidation Officer who shall give full opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and decide the same in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made hereinabove or by the authorities in respect of the merits of the claim of the parties.