Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.— Heard Sri R.K.Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Trivedi who is for the contesting respondent no.2. 2. This matter is being disposed of finally at this stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and learned standing counsel as well as the learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent nos. 4,5,6 and 9. The other respondents need not be heard at this stage inasmuch as the short issue involved in this petition is about a 26 year time barred objection under section 9A(2) of the U.P.c.H.Act, 1953 filed by the respondent no.2 Rafiqan represented by Sri Trivedi. 3. The short facts given rise to this writ petition are that the respondent no.2 was not even recorded in the basic year when the consolidation operations commenced. It was the name of the petitioner that was recorded in the basic year record and was ultimately maintained as such in his favour. However, before the village could be denotified under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act,1953 the respondent no.2 filed an objection under Section 9-A-2 alleging that the name of her father Rakha ought to be recorded as per the pedigree admitted to her and indicated in her objection in para 7 thereof. She alleged that she is the married daughter of late Rakha and her name should be substituted in his place.This objection along with a delay application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed on 4.3.2005. 4. The village had been notified for consolidation operation in the year 1979. The objection therefore was after 26 years. The objection was rejected as being time barred and also recording a finding on merit that since 1359 fasli the name of the petitioner's father Fateh Mohammad was recorded. as the sole tenure holder. The respondent no.2 alleged that this was an out come of a fraud and therefore objections should be allowed. She also alleged that she came to know that the petitioner, who is the son of Fateh Mohammad started disposing of the property. 5. The Consolidation Officer disbelieved the said plea of delay, and also on merit rejected her objections. She filed a revision straight away under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H.Act without filing any appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. 6. 5. The Consolidation Officer disbelieved the said plea of delay, and also on merit rejected her objections. She filed a revision straight away under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H.Act without filing any appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. 6. The said revision was entertained and the Deputy Director of Consolidation after having discussed the entire claim of the respondent no.2 on merits allowed her revision observing that since consolidation proceedings are still proceeding, the rights of the parties would stand finalised for all times to come and therefore it would be appropriate to condone the delay of 26 year. The revision was allowed and directions were issued to the Consolidation Officer to decide the case on merits. 7. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is under challenge before this Court contending that the impugned order dated 26.3.2008 has been passed without discussing the ingredients of the condonation of delay which was required in this case keeping in view the 26 years of long delay. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri R.K.Yadav has relied on the judgment in Priambada Vs. D.D.C reported in 2011 RD 126 to urge that such an attitude of recklessly on condoning delay without recording a finding cannot stand the scrutiny of law. He contends that even otherwise the respondent no.2 cannot succeed to the holding of late Rakha as it was an ancestral holding. 9. Sri S.K.Srivastava Advocate had been heard and this writ petition was admitted on 25.4.2011 and the interim order dated 15.4.2008 was confirmed.Subsequently Sri Trivedi has put in appearance and moved an application urging that the interim order deserves to be modified and he prays that the petitioner should be restrained from alienating or transferring the property in dispute during the pendency of the writ petition. 10. Sri Trivedi contends that the delay has been rightly condoned inasmuch as the order of the Consolidation Officer if allowed to stand would raise a bar under Section 49 that would operate as soon as the Village is denotified and in such circumstances the answering respondent will be unable to assert any her rights for all times to come. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the aforesaid submissions, there is no doubt that the application was filed along with the objection for condoning the delay after 26 years of the notification of the Village for consolidation operation. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the aforesaid submissions, there is no doubt that the application was filed along with the objection for condoning the delay after 26 years of the notification of the Village for consolidation operation. The limitation prescribed under Section 9-A to file an objection is 21 days from the date of notification as provided for under the U.P.C.H.Act, 1953. 12. In such circumstances there has to be some cogent reason for the purpose of condoning the delay and entertaining the application. The respondent no.2 is a resident of the same Village and it cannot be inferred that consolidation operations having commenced, she had no knowledge about the notification as well as others processes that are carried out including distributing of CH Form 5 in the Village. The explanation is to be from the stage carrying out of the survey of the holding and distributing of the forms. The answering respondent in her section 5 application has not indicated f any such cause of action for condoning the delay. 13. In my opinion the aforesaid fact was required for the purpose of explanation of delay of 26 years inasmuch as the name of the respondent no.2 was not recorded even in the basic year. She should therefore have filed objections within time or ought to have given appropriate explanation as to why she was prevented from filing objections. The Consolidation Officer has indicated this fact. The Deputy Director of Consolidation without reversing the same and without recording any cogent finding on the explanation to be afforded by the appellant, issued a direction to the Consolidation Officer to decide the objections on merit. 14. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Priambada (supra) squarely stands attracted on the facts of the present case. 15. Sri Trivedi contends that this court has taken a liberal view in such matters where the question of title is involved. He further submits that since the manipulation in the entries was an out come of fraud therefore the order deserves to be interfered with and this argument is supported by the information that has been received under the Right to Information Act. 16. He further submits that since the manipulation in the entries was an out come of fraud therefore the order deserves to be interfered with and this argument is supported by the information that has been received under the Right to Information Act. 16. The aforesaid argument for taking a liberal view cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the authority condoning the delay has to find out a plausible reason to establish such facts that had prevented the objector from filing the objection within time that would also include the date of knowledge of the initiation of the consolidation process. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not adverted to this aspect of the matter. 17. Secondly the entry in the name of father of the petitioner even before the consolidation operations was never challenged. This circumstance was also necessary to be noted for the purpose of inference of any such fraud. 18. Nonetheless the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not have assumed fraud for the purpose of condoning delay which has to be established by way of evidence. In the circumstances the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not have condoned the delay in a cursory manner with a direction to the Consolidation Officer to proceed to decide the matter on merits. 19. Accordingly the impugned order dated 26.3.2008 is unsustainabale and is set aside. 20. The writ petition is allowed. The matter stands remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation who shall now proceed to examine the claim of the respondent no.2 on the basis of the facts stated herein above and then pass an appropriate order within a period of three months. _____________