JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Notice on behalf of respondents-1 and 2 has been accepted by Chief Standing Counsel and on behalf of respondent-3 to 6 has been accepted by Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh. It has been stated that respondents-7 to 10 are not interested person in this matter as such they are proforma party. The counsel for the contesting respondents does not propose to file any counter-affidavit and with the consent of the parties the writ petition is decided finally. 2. Heard Sri Ramesh Pundir for the petitioners and Sri K.R. Sirohi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh for respondents-3 to 6. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 20.5.2011 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.8.2014 passed in the proceeding under Section 9 B of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 3. The dispute relates determination of valuation of plot No. 1179 area 0.3000 hectare of village Budhana Tehsil Budhana, Distt. Muzaffar Nagar. Admittedly the land in dispute was the original holding of the petitioners and their co-sharers. The village was notified under Section 9 of the Act on 30.9.1993 and under Section 20 of the Act on 20.12.2007. The petitioners filed an application under Section 9 (2) of the Act along with delay condonation application on 17.1.2008 for deleting the valuation of plot No. 1179 area 0.3000 hectare on the ground that land in dispute was consisting grove as well as boring of the petitioner accordingly the determination of valuation of this plot was illegal. On the objection of the petitioner the Consolidator has submitted a report dated 12.2.2008 in which he has mentioned that there has been 13 trees of Mango, 5 trees of Adu and 5 trees of Guava and he has also installed a tube well over the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer by the order dated 18.2.2008 condoned the delay in filing the objection and allowed the objection and directed to delete the valuation of plot No. 1179 area 0.3000 hectare. Against the aforesaid order respondents-3 to 6 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Consolidation Officer by the order dated 18.2.2008 condoned the delay in filing the objection and allowed the objection and directed to delete the valuation of plot No. 1179 area 0.3000 hectare. Against the aforesaid order respondents-3 to 6 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. As the land in dispute was proposed in their chak as such the petitioners raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal however it appears that the objection filed by the petitioners regarding the maintainability of the appeal remained undecided and in the meantime the Settlement Officer Consolidation inspected the spot on 26.3.2011 and thereafter allowed the appeal by order dated 20.5.2011 holding that the land in dispute was agricultural land and no grove was found on it at the time of spot inspection. The petitioners filed a revision against the aforesaid order which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 30.8.2014. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also relied upon the observation of Settlement Officer Consolidation regarding his spot inspection as well as the report of Consolidator dated 12.2.2008. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. The counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as the report of Consolidator dated 12.2.2008 is concerned, it is clearly mentioned the existence of 13 trees of Mango, 5 trees of Adu and 5 trees of Guava as well as installation of pumping set. So far as the spot inspection is made by the Settlement Officer Consolidation is concerned, it has not been kept on record and thus it cannot be said that whether the Settlement Officer Consolidation has actually found any grove on the spot and no reliance can be placed on the observation made in this respect in the judgment of Settlement Officer Consolidation. He submits that the notification under Section 9 of the Act in the village was made on 30.9.1993 but the notification under Section 20 was made on 20.12.2008 and since the chaks were not carved out and the petitioners were through out remained in possession over the land in dispute and the petitioners being a rustic villager could not know about the entry made during partal in CH Form 2 A therefore the objection under Section 9 (2) could not be filed within time but as the provisional consolidation scheme itself was not made till December 2007 as such this was the sufficient cause for condoning the delay and delay in filing the objection was condoned by the Consolidation Officer and he relied upon the report of the Consolidator dated 12.2.2008 and deleted the valuation of the land in dispute. The order of Consolidation Officer was not liable to be set aside by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. 5. In reply to the aforesaid arguments the counsel for the respondents submits that notification under Section 9 was made on 30.9.1993 and objection under Section 9 (2) was required to be filed within 21 days thereafter. As the objection was not filed as such the claim of the petitioners have become barred under Section 11 A of the Act and at the time of carvation of chak this question could not be raised. He further submits that Settlement Officer Consolidation has made spot inspection and he did not find any tree during spot inspection accordingly the appeal was allowed and the statement of fact recorded in the judgement cannot be challenged by the petitioners. There is no evidence on record to show that grove as well as pumping set of the petitioners was in existence at the time of partal of the land in dispute. The petitioner was not entitled to change the entry of the land after notification under Section 9 (2) without permission of Settlement Officer Consolidation therefore the objection raised at the time of allotment of chak was mala fide and was barred under Section 11 A of the Act. 6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. Under Section 53 B of the Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been applied to the proceeding under the Act therefore the consolidation authorities have jurisdiction to condone the delay. 6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. Under Section 53 B of the Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been applied to the proceeding under the Act therefore the consolidation authorities have jurisdiction to condone the delay. The petitioners have taken ground for condoning the delay that as the chaks were not carved out and they are through out remained in possession over the land in dispute. During partal grove was found but inadvertently it was not recorded as such they could not file the objection within time. The Consolidation Officer on being satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioners condoned the delay. In such circumstances bar contained under Section 11 A could not be applied as the objection was filed under Section 9 (2) and the objection was not at subsequent stage i.e. under Section 20 of the Act. 7. So far as the argument that there was no evidence on record to show that there was any grove at the time of partal made under Section 8A of the Act is concerned, a perusal of the judgements shows that the Consolidation Officer relied upon the report of Consolidator dated 12.2.2008 and allowed the objection of the petitioners as it appears that before the Consolidation Officer there was no contest between the parties and in the subsequent stages no evidence was recorded, in such circumstances, neither the petitioners nor the respondents could adduce any evidence regarding non-existence of grove as well as pumping set at the time of partal. The spot inspection memo made by the Settlement Officer Consolidation is not on record. In any case in spot inspection, age of the trees could not have been decided. In such circumstances, the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 25.5.2011 as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.8.2014 are liable to be set aside. 8. In the results, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 25.5.2011 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.8.2014 are set aside. The matter is remanded before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who either himself or by remitting the issues to Consolidation Officer, get the evidence of the parties recorded on the issue relating to existence of grove at the time of partal and thereafter decide the matter finally after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The matter is remanded before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who either himself or by remitting the issues to Consolidation Officer, get the evidence of the parties recorded on the issue relating to existence of grove at the time of partal and thereafter decide the matter finally after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Since the matter is lingering for a long time, the entire exercise be completed within a period of six months. ——————