JUDGMENT : Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri O.P. Pandey for the petitioners and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh for the contesting respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 9.3.2011 allowing the appeal filed by Devi Prasad and others and set aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 3.12.2004 passed in the proceeding under Rule 109 A and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17.3.2015 dismissing the revision of the petitioners filed against the aforesaid order. 3. On the basis of the order of Consolidation Officer dated 22.2.1967 the proceeding under Rule 109 A was initiated by the petitioners before Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer by order dated 3.12.2004 decided the proceeding and demarcated the chaks of the parties on the spot. On the allegation that Consolidation Officer has not given any notice before passing the order dated 3.12.2004. A recall application has been filed by Suresh Chandra and others before the Consolidation Officer. The recall application was rejected by the Consolidation Officer by the order dated 19.5.2007. The revision filed by Suresh Chandra and others were also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 8.9.2008. 4. Thereafter Devi Prasad and others filed an appeal under Rule 109 A (3) of the Rules against the order dated 3.12.2004 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation along with delay condonation application. The delay condonation application as well as appeal both were decided by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 9.3.2011 by a composite order. The operative portion of the order reads as "delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is condoned and the appeal is allowed. Order dated 3.12.2004 is set aside. The matter is remanded to Consolidation Officer for deciding the application of the petitioner in accordance with law." The revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has also been dismissed. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that Suresh Chandra and others were co-shares of Devi Prasad and others were joint chak holder in the chak in dispute. Suresh Chandra and others filed a recall application before the Consolidation Officer on 18.11.2006 therefore their other co-sharers have also got knowledge of the order dated 3.12.2004 at that time itself but the appeal was filed on 17.7.2010. Suresh Chandra and others filed a recall application before the Consolidation Officer on 18.11.2006 therefore their other co-sharers have also got knowledge of the order dated 3.12.2004 at that time itself but the appeal was filed on 17.7.2010. Thus there was no cause for condoning the inordinate delay but the delay has been illegally condoned. He further submits that after condoning the delay, the Settlement Officer Consolidation was required to hear the appeal on merit afresh but by a composite order he simultaneously allowed the appeal also without recording any finding in this respect. The order of Settlement Officer Consolidation was illegal but the revision filed by the petitioners has been illegally dismissed. 6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. 7. So far as the delay condonation application as well as reason for allowing the appeal are concerned, they depend on one and same fact that the order dated 3.12.2004 was passed exparte. Once the finding has been recorded that order dated 3.12.2004 was an exparte order, delay was liable to be condoned and for that reason the appeal was liable to be allowed. Therefore there was no illegality in allowing the appeal and condoning the delay by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. 8. So far as the argument by the counsel for the petitioners that other co-sharers have filed a recall application and demarcation and delivery of possession was actually given by Assistant Consolidation Officer on the spot on 27.4.2006 thus Devi Prasad and others came to know about it, is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that either in the restoration application Devi Prasad and others were served any notice or their signatures has been obtained in the delivery of possession memo thus mere presumption will not be sufficient to rebut the allegation that no notice was served and they have no knowledge of the exparte order dated 3.12.2004 and on this ground the finding of fact recorded by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation cannot be set aside by this Court. 9. So far as nature of the order is concerned, the matter has been remanded and the petitioners have every opportunity to agitate their grievances before the Consolidation Officer. At this stage, no interference is required by this Court. 10. The writ petition has no merit, it is dismissed. 9. So far as nature of the order is concerned, the matter has been remanded and the petitioners have every opportunity to agitate their grievances before the Consolidation Officer. At this stage, no interference is required by this Court. 10. The writ petition has no merit, it is dismissed. However the Consolidation Officer may hear the parties and shall make all effort to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months. Petition Dismissed.