JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Ranjeet Kumar Yadav for the petitioner and Sri Rama Shanker Mishra for the caveator. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 26.6.2006, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 30.4.2012 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 7.4.2016 passed in the proceeding Under Section 9-B of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The dispute in the present case is in respect of valuation of plot no.698. Admittedly, the petitioner as well as her husband and respodnent-4 were cosharers in plot no.698. Assistant Consolidation Officer, determined valuation of plot no.698 at the rate of 70 paisa. From the stage of Settlement Officer, Consolidation entire area of plot no.698 was allotted in chak of respondent-4, therefore, he filed a time barred objection for reducing the valuation of plot no.698 along with other plots. Consolidation Officer called for a report of the subordinate authority and after taking evidence by order dated 26.6.2006 allowed the objection and reduced the valuation of plot no.698 etc. from 70 paisa to 40 paisa. The petitioner filed an application for recall of the aforesaid order, which was rejected by Consolidation Officer by order dated 13.4.2012. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in appeal. The appeal was dismissed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 26.9.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision, which was also dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 7.4.2016. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. The consolidation authorities in the impugned orders found that the land in dispute is a sloppy land on the spot. Therefore its valuation was wrongly determined at the rate of 70 paisa. On this finding the valuation was reduced to 40 paisa. It may be mentioned that husband of the petitioner was cosharer in plot no.698. The husband of the petitioner did not challenge the order of Consolidation Officer. He did not join with the petitioner either in the restoration application or in appeal or in revision. Thus, the order has been passed after giving opportunity to the husband of the petitioner, who has similar grievance in the land in dispute. This fact has not been challenged by the petitioner. He did not join with the petitioner either in the restoration application or in appeal or in revision. Thus, the order has been passed after giving opportunity to the husband of the petitioner, who has similar grievance in the land in dispute. This fact has not been challenged by the petitioner. In view of the finding recorded by the consolidation authorities, the land in dispute is sloppy land as such its valuation is liable to be determined at the rate of 40 paisa and no interference is required by this Court. So far as the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that Kunwarsen was co-tenure holder of the land in dispute but he did not file objection under Section 9 of the Act then delay was not liable to be condoned. In this respect suffice to say that when entire area of plot no.698 was alloted in the chak of Kunwarsen from the stage of Settlement Officer, Consolidation then he filed objection. Consolidation Officer condoned the delay in filing the objection and heard the case on merit. Thus, at this stage this Court cannot re-examine sufficiency of cause for condoning the delay. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.