JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—This petition is directed against the orders dated 6.11.1986, 26.7.1993 and 26.10.1998 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Ghaziabad, Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ghaziabad and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad respectively. 2. The facts in brief are as follows: 3. One Nanua son of Risal was allotted a portion of land of Khata No. 366 in Village Derikot, Pargana and Tahsil Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar. He is said to have died on 15.3.1980. On an application filed on behalf of Ram Kishan respondent No. 4 claiming to be nephew of Nanua, the land was mutated in his name by the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 6.11.1986. 4. The petitioners who claim to be the real sisters of Nanua (deceased) filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer alongwith an application for condonation of delay. It was their case that they were real sisters of the deceased and they were not aware that he possessed any land. On 17.4.1991 they came to Village Derikot when they were informed about the mutation order in favour of the respondent No. 4. They thereafter had the records inspected and came to know about the order in favour of the said respondent. They were not aware of the consolidation proceedings in the writ or of the order passed in favour of the respondent No. 4 prior to 17.4.1991. It is also alleged that the respondent No. 4 is not nephew of Nanua (deceased). It is with the aforesaid allegation that the appeal and the delay condonation application was filed. At this stage it would be relevant to record that both the petitioners namely Smt. Ramkali and Smt. Chandri filed separate affidavit in support of the delay condonation application. 5. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation by his judgment and order dated 26.7.1993 dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay which order has been affirmed by the revisional Court. Hence this writ petition. 6. Heard Sri Chandra Kumar Rai learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Vinod Kumar Rai who appears for the respondent. 7. 5. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation by his judgment and order dated 26.7.1993 dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay which order has been affirmed by the revisional Court. Hence this writ petition. 6. Heard Sri Chandra Kumar Rai learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Vinod Kumar Rai who appears for the respondent. 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below have erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal because the affidavit filed in support thereof by the petitioner No. 1 remained unrebutted and therefore the same had to be believed and consequently the delay in filing the appeal necessarily had to be condoned. He has placed reliance of Para 15 of the Writ Petition relevant portion whereof is quoted below: “The Courts below have failed to consider the affidavit filed by the petitioner No. 1 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Ghaziabad which was unrebutted and therefore it had to be relied upon.” 8. This averment has been replied in paragraph 26 of the counter-affidavit which read as follows: “That, the contents of paragraphs No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the writ petition are not admitted. The Deputy Director Consolidation rightly dismissed the Revision filed by the petitioners and affirmed the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. The findings recorded by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director Consolidation are findings of fact based on consideration of affidavits and evidence filed by the parties, and that finding of fact cannot be disturbed in the writ jurisdiction by this Hon’ble Court.” 9. From a perusal of the above it is cleared that the averment made by the petitioners remained uncontroverted. There is only vague denial of the averment in the writ petition that the affidavit of the petitioner No. 1 filed in support of the delay condonation application remained unrebutted. 10. Since the affidavit of the petitioner No. 1 filed in support of the delay condonation application was unrebutted, the same should have been relied upon and ignoring this aspect of the matter, the Settlement Officer Consolidation has erred and his order therefore is unsustainable. Even the Deputy Director of Consolidation while affirming the appellate order has failed to consider this aspect of the matter which vitiates the revisional order as well. 11. Even the Deputy Director of Consolidation while affirming the appellate order has failed to consider this aspect of the matter which vitiates the revisional order as well. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Rajpat Singh and others v. Veer Singh, 2010 (109) RD 628. In para 8 of this judgment this Court has held that in view of the decision of the Apex Court it is abundantly clear while considering the the delay condonation application the Court has to see the merit of the case also as the law of limitation is not meant to take away right of Appeal. The Courts are known for imparting justice and not to scuttle the process of justice on technicalities. The length of delay is also not very much material if there is a substance or merit. 12. On the strength of this observations, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on account of the impugned order, the petitioners have been shut out without any hearing on the merits of their claim. He therefore submits that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded for a decision on merit. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the impugned orders are perfectly justified, the inordinate delay of almost six years has not been properly explained and the Courts below rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay. 14. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records, it is established that the averment in the writ petition that the affidavit of the petitioner No. 1 filed in support of the delay condonation application remained unrebutted and therefore the Settlement Officer Consolidation relying upon the same should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal. 15. In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 26.7.1993 and 26.10.1998 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation are hereby quashed. The Settlement Officer Consolidation is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioners on merits after hearing the parties and after affording them adequate opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases. The impugned orders dated 26.7.1993 and 26.10.1998 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation are hereby quashed. The Settlement Officer Consolidation is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioners on merits after hearing the parties and after affording them adequate opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases. Since the matter is very old one it is expected that the Settlement Officer Consolidation shall deal with the matter expeditiously and try to dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. 16. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.