JUDGMENT : Rajiv Joshi, J. 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 22.4.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad in Revision Nos. 1090 and 1091 of 2014 (Prem Kumar Chadha and others v. Gopal Chadha and others), whereby both the revisions were allowed and delay in filing the objection was condoned with the direction to the Consolidation Officer, Soraon, Allahabad to decide the objection on merits. 2. Relevant facts for consideration in the present case are thus: (i) The dispute relates to plot No. 97 area 6 bigha 4 biswa 19 dhoor situate at Village Khaninar, Pargana and Tehsil Soraon, District Allahabad. The village in question was placed under consolidation operation in the year 1956-57 and the final records were prepared in the name of Sri Krishna Chander Kaur, Sri Sharad Chander Kaur, Sandeep Kumar and Seema Kaur, Pradeep Kaur son of Krishnachander Kaur and Km. Mukhla Kaur and these persons became bhumidhar and got possession. The land of Plot Nos. 44, 71, 75, 97 and 100 (total area 51 bigha, 13 biswa, 9 biswansi) was transferred by the aforesaid persons in favour of Shiv Prasad Chaddha, Prem Kumar Chaddha and Gopal Chaddha, and therefore, these three persons had one-third share in the aforesaid five plots so acquired by the sale-deed in the year 1981-82. The second consolidation proceedings were started and notification under section 4 (2) of U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued in 1981-82 and the notification under section 9 of the Act was published on 31.10.1984. The provisional consolidation scheme under section 20 of the Act was published on 20.3.1986. (ii) It also reflects from the record that respondent No. 1-Prem Kumar Chadha filed the objection under section 9-A (2) as well as under section 20 of the Act with regard to plot No. 75/1 and for chak No. 50 against one Bhulai (third party). Both these objections did not concern with regard to the plot No. 97, which is in dispute. (iii) In these objections filed by the respondent No. 1-Prem Kumar Chadha, the consolidation authorities passed the order, which was ultimately challenged by the respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 14265 of 1993 (Prem Kumar Chadha v. DDC Allahabad and others) and the said writ petition was subsequently dismissed. (iii) In these objections filed by the respondent No. 1-Prem Kumar Chadha, the consolidation authorities passed the order, which was ultimately challenged by the respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 14265 of 1993 (Prem Kumar Chadha v. DDC Allahabad and others) and the said writ petition was subsequently dismissed. In the said writ petition, earlier an interim order was passed staying the dispossession of the petitioners pursuant to the order passed by the consolidation authorities. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the possession of chaks started taking place, which is recorded to be in between 15.5.2008 to 27.6.2008. The objection under section 9-B as well as under section 20 of the Act was filed by respondent No. 1-Prem Kumar and Rajesh Kumar Chadha on 16.7.2008 and 12.7.2008 respectively with the demand that the land of plot No. 97 be kept outside the consolidation on the ground that it is road-side land. The said objections were filed after about 24 years from the date of publication of notification under section 9 of the Act. A prayer was also made in both the objections that recently they came to know about the consolidation proceedings and therefore, the delay, if any, is liable to be condoned. The objections were supported by an affidavit of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. (iv) The objections were contested by the petitioner on the ground that the said objections were filed at a very belated stage, although the objectors have knowledge about the consolidation and they filed the objections in respect of other plots and deliberately not filed the objection with regard to plot No. 97 and under these circumstances, no ground for condoning the inordinate delay is made out and the objection is liable to be rejected as time barred. 3. The Consolidation Officer after considering the material available on record passed the order dated 11.11.2011 rejecting the said objections as time barred holding that no sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 24 years has been shown by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their objections. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 against the order of the Consolidation Officer filed an appeal being Appeal No. 1600-A/1566 under section 11 (1) of the Act and another Appeal No. 374/347 under section 21 (2) of the Act. 1 and 2 in their objections. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 against the order of the Consolidation Officer filed an appeal being Appeal No. 1600-A/1566 under section 11 (1) of the Act and another Appeal No. 374/347 under section 21 (2) of the Act. Both these appeals were dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 20.5.2013 being not maintainable as the objections were dismissed on the ground of delay and not on merits. 4. Against the order dated 20.5.2013, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed two revisions bearing revision Nos. 1090 and 1091 of 2013 before Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 22.4.2014 allowed the revisions and condoned the delay in filing the objections filed under section 9B and section 20 of the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has observed that although the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rightly passed the order as the appeal against the dismissal of objections on the ground of limitation is not maintainable and treated the revisions to be filed against the order of the Consolidation Officer while condoning the delay in filing the revisions. 5. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.4.2014 is impugned in the present writ petition. 6. I have heard Sri H.M.B. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Singh as well as Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 7. Contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that respondents have knowledge about the consolidation operation in the village in question as they have filed some objections with regard to allotment of chak in the year 1986 itself but did not file any objection in respect of plot No. 97 and therefore, the objections filed by contesting respondents after 24 years cannot be entertained and it had rightly been dismissed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 11.11.2011. 8. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Writ Petition No. 14265 of 1993 filed by the respondent No. 1 and the contents thereof, clearly indicate that they had knowledge about the consolidation operation and the ground for condoning the delay to the effect that they recently came to know about the consolidation is totally incorrect and even against their own admission in the body of the writ petition. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 1 is also a member of consolidation committee and had knowledge about the consolidation operation in the village and it is unbelievable that he acquired knowledge recently prior to the filing of the objections. 9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that they acquired the knowledge after the dismissal of the writ petition sometimes in 2008, when the proceedings for possession of chak started taking place and therefore the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly condoned the delay in filing the objections and remitted the matter to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the objections filed by the contesting respondents on merits. 10. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the respondents that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in case the objections are decided on merits and substantial justice has been done between the parties and the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution should be exercised to advance justice and the matter should be decided on merits instead of technicalities. 11. I have considered the rival submissions so raised by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. Under section 9 (2) of the Act, 21 days' limitation has been provided for filing objection after the receipt of notice in C.H. Form 5 or publication of village under section 9 (1) of the Act. Admittedly, the village was notified under section 9 of the Act on 31.10.1984. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their objections, nowhere denied the service of C.H. Form 5 upon them and only reason for condonation of delay has been given that they recently acquired knowledge when delivery of possession in the village over confirmed chak was done in the year 2008, only then they got knowledge about the consolidation. 13. The limitation for filing objection under section 9 (2) of the Act is 21 days from the date of receipt of notice in C.H. Form 5 or publication of village under section 9 (1) of the Act. Admittedly, prior to filing the present objections, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Writ Petition No. 14265 of 1993 challenging the order of the consolidation authorities, which shows that they had knowledge about the consolidation operation. Paragraph Nos. Admittedly, prior to filing the present objections, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Writ Petition No. 14265 of 1993 challenging the order of the consolidation authorities, which shows that they had knowledge about the consolidation operation. Paragraph Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the said writ petition, which have been quoted in paragraph 6 of the present writ petition are reproduced hereinunder: "Para-2 That initially the Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed a chak to the petitioner on plots No. 71, 75/2, 76, 77, 78, 80, 84, 82, 86 and 87 (all mins.) measuring 13 bighas 10 biswa and 10 dhur only. It was in lieu of petitioner's original plots measuring 16 bigha, 16 biswa and 19 dhur. A photo copy of the C.H. Form 23 (Part-1) of the petitioner showing the proposal made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer is being annexed herewith as Annexure-1. A copy of the C.H. Form 23 of the petitioner is filed herewith marked as Annexure-3 to this writ petition. Para-3 That the plots proposed in the chak of the petitioner by the Assistant Consolidation Officer can be ascertained from the map issued by the Reader of Assistant Consolidation Officer, Soraon Allahabad. Para-4 That the petitioner was satisfied by the proposal made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, but in order to make a rectangular chak, the petitioner filed objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The petitioner's case was that since the petitioner's abadi was existing in between the plot No. 75 and other plots (which have been shown in the chak map, Annexure-2 by red marking) and towards South of the petitioner's chak proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on plots No. 77, 76 and 84, the chak number 100 be removed and that area may be given in the petitioner's chak and in lieu thereof the petitioner's chak in plot No. 71 be removed, and in this way the petitioner would be able to get a rectangular chak. Another ground for removal of the chak No. 100 towards South of plots No. 77, 80 and 84 etc. was that it was towards West of the petitioner's Abadi. It is worth to mention here that the petitioner's abadi on plot No. 75 was chak out. There is a Tube-well of the petitioner also in the aforesaid abadi shown by marking 'A' in the map. Para-5 That various other objections were filed by other tenure holders. was that it was towards West of the petitioner's Abadi. It is worth to mention here that the petitioner's abadi on plot No. 75 was chak out. There is a Tube-well of the petitioner also in the aforesaid abadi shown by marking 'A' in the map. Para-5 That various other objections were filed by other tenure holders. A part from the petitioner's objection, the objection of other tenure holders and villages of village Khaninar, and it was requested in the application that the land of the petitioner was at the corner of the village is being used for ingress of the villagers. The villagers agreed that this land may be left as Bachat land. A true copy of the application of the villagers is being annexed herewith and Annexure-3. The result of this application was that the plot No. 44 was left as bachat land and the Consolidation Officer by order dated 14.5.1986, decided all the objections by singly order and did not alteration in the petitioner's chak also. The result of this alteration was that the petitioner's chak on plots No. 76 and 77 etc. was reduced to the extent of 2 bigha 12 biswa and 12 dhur land and a second chak was allotted on plot No. 44/2 min. A little benefits was also given by the Consolidation Officer and the petitioner got chak on plots No. 93 and 94 and thus he got benefit of road." 14. The contents of the said paragraphs have not specifically denied in the counter-affidavit filed by the contesting respondents. 15. From perusal of these narration of facts made in the earlier writ petition filed by the contesting respondents, it is quite clear when they got knowledge about the publication of notice under section 9 of the Act, they filed objections under section 9-A (2) and section 20 of the Act with regard to the allotment of chak. Even otherwise in paragraph 4 of the grounds taken in Revision No. 629 of 1987 filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad by respondent No. 1-Prem Kumar Chadha, it is admitted that actual possession has been delivered pursuant to the proposed scheme made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. 16. Even otherwise in paragraph 4 of the grounds taken in Revision No. 629 of 1987 filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad by respondent No. 1-Prem Kumar Chadha, it is admitted that actual possession has been delivered pursuant to the proposed scheme made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. 16. The Consolidation Officer himself while rejecting the objections filed by the contesting respondents, has recorded a finding that at the time of issuance of notification under section 9 of the Act i.e. on 31.10.1984, there existed no road over the land of plot No. 97 and even the respondent No. 1 contested the matter with regard to the allotment of chak at every stage of consolidation in respect of other plots except the plot in question. Relevant portion of the order of Consolidation Officer in this regard, is quoted hereinunder: ^^vkifŸkdrkZ }kjk blh U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 16-10-2009 okn la[;k 151 varZxr /kkjk 9&d¼2½ dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS pwafd xk-la-6 ,o 16 ij fdlh ewy [kkrsnkj dk pd orZeku ds fdukjs gksus ds otg pdcanh izfØ;k ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k FkkA ftlds f[kYkkQ vihy nkf[ky dh x;h vihy la[;k 70@151 varxZr /kkjk 9¼[k½¼3½ jkenkl vkfn cuke jkepanz] vihy Lohdkj dh x;h vkns'k okn la[;k 151 fnukad 16-10-2009 fujLr dj fn;k x;k vkSj o vafre gSA vkns'k izfr i=koyh esa layXu gSA izse dqekj pM~ढk }kjk ;g dgk tkuk fd mUgsa dCtk ifjorZu fd;s tkus ds nkSjku tkudkjh gqbZ ds ckor pdcanh vfHkys[kks ls Li"V gS fd izse dqekj pM~ढk pdcUnh lfefr ds lnL; Hkh jgsA pdcanh desVh ds lnL; Fks Jh ca'kh yky iz/kku v/;{k Jh T;ksfrdk izlkn lnL; Jh cnzh izlkn lnL;] Jh izse dqekj pM~~ढk lnL; rFkk Jh jke nqykjs lnL;] pdcanh lfefr ds FksA pdcanh lfefr dh lHkh cSBds pM~ढk QkeZ ij gh dh x;h gS bl izdkj lHkh dk;Zokgh izse dqekj pM~ढk dh ns[kjs[k esa gqbZ muds ifjokj ds fdlh Hkh O;fDr }kjk dksbZ ckn dgha Hkh izLrqr ugah fd;k izse dqekj pM~ढk }kjk gh lHkh dk;Zokgh rFkk eqdnesa ACO/CO/SOC/DDC/ ek- mPp U;k;ky; vius gd dh yM+kbZ yM+rs jgs gS ijUrq xk-la[;k 97 ds ckcr dksbZ okn dHkh Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;kA bl lEca/k esa pdcanh vf/kdkjh] dkSfMgkj ds vkns'k okn la[;k 829 varxZr /kkjk 20 fnukad 14-5-1986 dks fn;k tk ldrk gSA ftlesa pdcanh vf/kdkjh us dgk gS fd izse dqekj pM~ढk ds ewy xkVs 44] 71] 75] 97] 100 vk/ks ls T;knk Ålj gS rFkk mit ugha gksrh gS vkifŸkdŸkkZ izse dqekj gks tks pd fn;k x;k gS muds ewy xkVksa ls T;knk vPNk gS vkifŸk izse dqekj fujLr dh x;haA TkgkW rd vkifŸkdŸkkZ izse dqekj pMढk }kjk ekuuh; pdcUnh vk;qDr ds i=akd la[;k 2630@th&415@2002 fnukad 12 ebZ] 2003 dk mYys[k fd;k gSA mDr vkns'k dk Hkh fof/kor ifj'khyu fd;k x;k mDr vkns'k ls funs'kky; ds i= la[;k 37&th&452@81 fnukad 26 ebZ] 1981 ,oa izek.k i= la[;k 8634@th&,l&110@88&89 fnukad 9 flrEcj] 1988 ftldk fo"k; lM+d ds fdukjs fLFkr xkzeks esa fl)karks ds fooj.k&i= cukrs le; fo'ks"k lko/kkuh cjrus ds lEca/k esa gSA lM+d ds fdukjs dh Hkwfe fuekZ.k egRo dh gksrh gSA pdcanh lfefr ds ijke'kZ ls pdcanh izfØ;k ls i`Fkd j[kk tk;A bl izdj.k esa Jh izse dqekj pMढk Loa; pdcanh lfefr ds lnL; FksA mUgsa iwjh tkudkjh jghA lHkh cSBds muds gh QkeZ ij dh x;h gSA mUgs iwjh pdcanh izfØ;k dh tkudkjh jgh gSA ;g Hkh dgk tk ldrk gS fd xzke dh iwjh pdcanh izfØ;k gS mudh ns[k js[k esa gqbZ gSA izse dqekj pMढk }kjk lM+d ls yxh Hkwfe ds ckjs esa ekuuh; pdcanh vk;qDr dk ifji= jk"Vªh; LVsV] gkbZos ;k dkeflZ;y oSY;w ls lEcf/kr gS fdlh jkLrs [kksj ;k fyad jksM ds ckor ugha gSA iz'uxr lM+d ,d lkekU; jkLrk ewY;kadu ¼fofue; vuqikr½ fnukad 21-8-1984 dks yxk;k x;k gS ml le; mDr xkVs ds lkeus dk xkVk jkLrk ds #i es nTkZ Fkk tks def'kZ;y ugah FkhA ekuuh; pdcanh vk;qDr egksn; dk vkns'k@funsZ'k mu xkVksa ds ckor gS tks fofue; vuqikr yxkrs le; fuekZ.k@def'kZ;y FksA ftl lM+d dh ckr dgh tk jgh gS og lM+dla[;k 2008 esa fufeZr gqbZ lu~ 1984 dh fLFkfr ds fglkc ls fofue; vuqikr yxk;k x;k Fkk rFkk vkifŸkdŸkkZ Loa; pdcanh lfefr dk lnL; jgk gS ,oa gj Lrj ij eqdnek yMs+ gS mUgs iwjh tkudkjh FkhA ;g dguk gS fd dCtk ugh gksrk gSA vkifŸkdŸkkZ iढ+s&fy[ks izcq) O;fDRk gSA lu~ 1984 dh fLFkfr vyx Fkh vc 2008 dh fLFkfr vyx gSA vkifŸkdŸkkZ viuh pd la[;k 50 ds ckor lHkh Lrj CO/SOC/DDC/ ek-mPp U;k;ky; es okn nkf[ky fd;k lQyrk@vlQyrk feyrh jgh ijUrq xk-la[;k 97 ds ckcr dksbZ Hkh okn dHkh Hkh fdlh U;k;ky; esa izLrqr vlQyrk feyrh jgh ijarq xk- la[;k 97 ds ckor dksbZ Hkh okn dHkh Hkh fdlh U;k;ky; izLrqar ugh fd;kA pdcanh vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k fnukad 14-5-1986 okn la[;k 829 ls Li"V gS fd Jh izse dqekj pMढk dks xk- la[;k 97 ds ckor iwjh tkudkjh FkhA vc ;g dguk gS fd dCtk ifjorZu ds nkSjku tkudkjh gqbZ lgh ugha izrhr gksrk gSA ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS i;kZIRk /ku [kpkZ djds xk- la[;k 97 dks d`f"k ;ksX; cuk;k x;k gS D;ksfd pdcanh vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k ls Li"V gS ;g Hkwfe Ålj ds :i es FkhA orZeku le; es vPNh lM+d cu x;h gS okLro es vc tehu lM+d ds fdukjs gS def'kZ;y gks x;h gS ftl le; fofue; vuqikr yxk;k x;k lM+d cgqr iryh Fkh vc dkQh pkSM+h gks x;h vxy&cxy tehusa Hkh lM+d esa pyh x;h gSA ;gka fopkj.kh; fcUnq ;g gS fd ftl Hkwfe dh dher lu~ 1984 esa ¼50½ ipkl iSlk Fkk vc l~u 2008 esa iDdh lM+d cu tkus ls ¼100½ iSlk ls vf/kd dh gks x;h gSA mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij eS bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWprk gwW fd lu~ 1984@86 tc fo-ue; vuqikr yxk;k x;kA ml le; dkef'kZ;y lM+d ugha Fkh cfYd jkLrk Fkk ftldk Hkh ewY;kadu yxk;k x;k Fkk ,d O;fDr dk dCtk Hkh Fkk dCtsnkj dk dCtk [kkfjt fd;k x;k ewY;kadu Hkh fujLr dj jkLrk esa ntZ lh,p&18 fd;k x;kA ;g vkifŸk 24 o"kZ ckn dh x;h gS izse dqekj pM~ढk dks lEiw.kZ izfØ;k dh tkudkjh FkhA pdcUnh desVh ds lnL; Hkh Fks mUgh dh pd ij cSBd Hkh gksrh FkhA xk- la[;k 97 ds ckor dHkh dksbZ okn ugh izLrqr fd;k x;k RkFkk pdcanh vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k fnukad 14-5-1986 dh tkudkjh gksus ds ckn ;g dguk ljklj xyr gS fd mUgsa dksbZ tkudkjh ugha Fkh vc pwafd lu~ 2008 esa iDdh lM+d dk fuekZ.k gks x;k gS lu~ 1984 dh fLFkfr ls vc 2008 dh fLFkfr ls rqyuk djuk mfpr ugha izrhr gksrk gSA ekWx U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugh gksrk gS /kkjk 5 fe;kn dk ykHk nsuk vkSfpR;iw.kZ ugha gSA vkifŸk izse dqekj pM~ढk o jkts'k dqekj vkfn Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; izrhr ugha gksrk gSA^^ 17. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order has only condoned the delay in filing the objections merely on the ground that possession was delivered sometime in 1988 and therefore, the contesting respondents acquired the knowledge thereafter and set aside the finding so recorded by the Consolidation Officer quoted above. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not even considered the fact that earlier the objections with regard to the allotment of chak were filed by the contesting respondents and the said proceedings travelled upto this Court and after the dismissal of the writ petition as well as after the change of nature of plot No. 97, the objections in question were filed. 18. In the aforesaid discussion as well as the legal proposition as discussed above, it is apparently clear that limitation starts from the receipt of notice in C.H. Form 5 or the publication of notice under section 9-A of the Act and not from the date of delivery of possession. The said view had already been taken by this Court in the case of Mahadev and others v. Dy. Director of Consolidation/A.C., Land Revenue and others, 2015 (126) RD 484 . 19. The judgment cited from the side of the respondents is to the effect that a lenient view ought to have been taken while considering the delay in filing the objection and substantial justice has to be done by deciding the objection on merits. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition as advanced by learned Counsel for the respondents. 20. The Apex Court in Lanka Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P.: AIR 2011 SC 1199 , held that whilst considering applications for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason. Whims or fancies; prejudices or predilections cannot and should not form the basis of exercising discretionary powers. 21. The Apex Court in Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason. Whims or fancies; prejudices or predilections cannot and should not form the basis of exercising discretionary powers. 21. The Apex Court in Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai 2012 (116) RD 392 (SC) : AIR 2012 SC 1629 , held that what needs to be emphasised is that even though a liberal and justice-oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various staged of litigation apart from the cost. What colour the expression "sufficient cause" would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay. 22. The Consolidation Officer after considering each and every aspect of the matter has held that contesting respondents had knowledge about the consolidation and the matter was contested upto this Court with regard to the allotment of chak in respect of some other plots except plot in dispute i.e. plot No. 97 and the respondent No. 1 being a member of the consolidation committee had also knowledge of consolidation operation and therefore, inordinate delay of 24 years in filing the objection was not sufficiently explained at all. The explanation given by the respondents was found to be concocted and they were thoroughly negligent in pursuing the cause. 23. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is totally against the inferences warranted under the law and the order impugned has been passed without considering the legal aspects of the matter. The explanation given by the respondents was found to be concocted and they were thoroughly negligent in pursuing the cause. 23. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is totally against the inferences warranted under the law and the order impugned has been passed without considering the legal aspects of the matter. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has condoned the delay in filing the objection without there being any sufficient explanation from the side of the contesting respondents. 24. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 22.4.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad in Revision Nos. 1090 and 1091 of 2014 is hereby quashed, upholding the order dated 11.11.2011 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Soraon, Allahabad in Case No. 351/820 under section 9 (B) of the Act. 25. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is, allowed. No order as to costs.