JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Narayan Dutt Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rudreshwari Prasad and Sri Chaudhary Subhash Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos.2/1 and 2/2 and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent no.1 and perused the record. 2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the order proposed to be passed hereinunder as well as with the consent of the parties, this Court proceeded to finally decide this matter at the admission stage, without calling for their respective affidavits, i.e. counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, with liberty to the contesting respondents to move a recall application, in case, any fact is found incorrect. 3. Under challenge in the present writ petition is order dated 30.10.2020 (Annexure-18) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity ‘D.D.C.’) (respondent no.1) in Revision No.2019530633000004 (Jagram vs. Balram) under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity ‘U.P.C.H. Act’). 4. Present writ petition is arising out of a proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Land in dispute was recorded in the name of Balle, who died on 14.02.1978. Smt. Bhura wife of Balle has moved an application dated 05.04.1978 (Annexure-3) for recording name of her son Balram (respondent no.3) in place of recorded tenure holder, Balle. Aforesaid application moved by Smt. Bhura (mother of respondent no.3) was allowed vide order dated 26.07.1978 (Annexure-4) passed by Consolidation Officer (in brevity 'C.O.') directing to record the name of Balram (respondent no.3) under the guardianship of his mother Smt. Bhura alias Badi Bahu. At a belated stage, Jagram (predecessor in interest of respondent nos.2/1 and 2/2) have filed an appeal dated 26.07.1994 (Annexure-6) before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity ‘S.O.C.’) on the ground that he is also one of the son of recorded tenure holder Balle, but his mother has deliberately ignored him in mutating his name in the Revenue Record along with his brother Balram in place of his deceased father. Aforesaid appeal was dismissed vide order dated 07.10.1998 (Annexure-7) on the ground of laches. Feeling aggrieved, Jagram has preferred revision before respondent no.1, who has dismissed the same vide its order dated 12.02.2019 (Annexure-16). Aforesaid appeal was dismissed vide order dated 07.10.1998 (Annexure-7) on the ground of laches. Feeling aggrieved, Jagram has preferred revision before respondent no.1, who has dismissed the same vide its order dated 12.02.2019 (Annexure-16). Respondent nos.2/1 and 2/2 (heirs and legal representatives of Jagram) have filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court against the order dated 12.02.2019, which was registered as Writ B no.950 of 2019 (Ramu Kushwaha and another vs. Balram and others). Aforesaid writ petition was allowed vide order dated 30.05.2019 (Annexure-17) remitting the matter back before respondent no.1 to decide the revision afresh. After remand, respondent no.1 has allowed the revision vide order dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure-18), which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 5. Present petitioner is claiming his right and title over the property in question being a bonafide purchaser from Balram (respondent no.3) who has executed the registered sale deed in favour of present petitioner. On the basis of aforesaid sale deed, mutation order dated 22.02.1989 was passed in favour of petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.1 has illegally allowed the revision and remitted the matter before the ‘C.O.’ for deciding it afresh, whereas the limited question was involved in the revision with respect to the merits of delay condonation application, which was rejected by the S.O.C. It is further submitted that respondent no.1 has illegally entered into the merits of the case and accidentally given some observation with respect to genuineness of Jagram, being son of Balle which can affect the merits of the case before the C.O. It is further submitted that Notification under section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act was promulgated on 10.02.1973 with respect to the aforesaid land in question and the same was denotified under section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act on 07.06.1980. During this period, name of respondent no.3 (vendor of petitioner) was recorded in the Revenue Record, who had executed the registered sale deed after denotification and, on the basis thereof, mutation order was passed in favour of present petitioner. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent nos.2/1 and 2/2 has contended that respondent no.1 has rightly allowed the revision remitting the matter before the C.O. to decide right and title of the parties afresh. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent nos.2/1 and 2/2 has contended that respondent no.1 has rightly allowed the revision remitting the matter before the C.O. to decide right and title of the parties afresh. Claim of Jagram, on the basis of succession being son of recorded tenure holder Balle, has illegally been discarded by the C.O. and affirmed by the S.O.C. Dismissing the appeal on the ground of laches, the S.O.C. was influenced with several litigation which were going on between the parties before Civil Court and Revenue Court, whereas legal right of Jagram being son of Balle has never been adjudicated upon at any stage of litigation before any competent court. He has further contended that opportunity is still open to the parties to get their right and title decided before the court competent in pursuance of impugned order passed by respondent no.1. There is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the respondent no.1 to be interfered by this Hon’ble Court. 8. Perused the record on board and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 9. From the record it emerges that the dispute arose with respect to the property belonging to one Balle. At an initial stage, respondent no.3 has got his name recorded in revenue record in place of Balle, being his only son. Subsequently, Jagram (predecessor in the interest of respondent nos.2/1 and 2/2) while came to know about the aforesaid fact, has filed an appeal claiming his right and title over the property in question, being second son of Balle. He came up with a case that, in fact, Balle had two sons namely, Balram and Jagram. Under mischievous play, his mother has got the name of respondent no.3 only, recorded in the Revenue Record and left the name of Jagram, to be recorded for the reasons best known to her. 10. The limited question, which arose for consideration before this Court is, as to whether respondent no.1 is justified in remitting the matter before the C.O. after considering the merits of the original case with respect to the genuineness of claim made by Jagram, whereas the S.O.C. has examined only merits of application for condonation of delay. 11. Order passed by the S.O.C. clearly reveals that he has not applied his mind with respect to the merits of the right and title of the parties. 11. Order passed by the S.O.C. clearly reveals that he has not applied his mind with respect to the merits of the right and title of the parties. It has simply dismissed the appeal on the ground of laches. No sufficient ground was found by the S.O.C. for condoning delay in filing the appeal. Challenge in revision was limited qua merits of delay condonation application. Respondent no.1, ought have discussed the sufficiency of grounds for condoning the delay in filing the appeal but, accidentally, he has given finding qua genuineness of Jagram, justifying his claim, being son of Balle. Record reveals that validity and genuineness of the claim of Jagram was not in question before respondent no.1, inasmuch as, same has not been scrutinized by the S.O.C. in its order dated 07.10.1988, which was challenged in revision before respondent no.1. Grounds of condoning the delay, in case, found sufficient by respondent no.1, he should have remitted the matter before the S.O.C. to decide the appeal on merits. 12. In my opinion, respondent no.1 has exceeded its jurisdiction in remitting the matter before the C.O. to decide the objection under Section 9 A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act afresh, without examining the legality and correctness of dismissal of appeal being barred by time. Respondent no.1 is not justified in travelling beyond the scope and merits of order, what has been challenged before him. Merits of right and title of the parties was not in question before respondent no.1, therefore, he should not have responded in this regard. 13. In the matter of Tirath vs. Joint Director of Consolidation and other reported in 1985 RD 276 , a Divison Bench of this Court has expounded that appeal, in case, dismissed being barred by limitation, revision petition cannot be allowed on merits without examining the legality and correctness of order under challenge. In the aforesaid cited case, following question was referred for determination : “whether the revisional authority under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act can allow revision petition without indicating whether the appeal filed by the applicant in revision having been dismissed on the ground of limitation was illegally, incorrectly and improperly decided or the appellant had sufficient cause for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.” 14. Aforesaid question was replied in negative by Division Bench of this Court, which is reproduced below: “We venture to think that the proper course for the Revisional Authority would have been to interfere with the order of the Appellate Authority-set aside the order of the dismissal of the appeal (as time barred) and in directing the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on the merits, instead of doing so himself. The Appellate Authority, after hearing the parties, could very well pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In case the order passed by the Consolidation Officer called for any interference it would be open to the Appellate Authority to do so. In case the appeal was rejected on the merits the Revisional Authority could examine the record to see if it should exercise its power under Section 48(1) of the Act.” 15. In this conspectus, as above, I am fully satisfied that the subject matter of revision, challenging the order of the S.O.C. was limited up to the merits of delay condonation application. Respondent no.1 has exceeded its jurisdiction in discussing the merits of original case and remitting the matter before the C.O. to examine the right and title of the parties afresh. Order dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure-18) passed by respondent no.1 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, to that extent. 16. Resultly, present writ petition is partly allowed and the order dated 30.12.2020 passed by the respondent no.1 is modified to the extent that matter is remitted before the S.O.C. for deciding the appeal, filed before him by Jagram, on its own merits. Benefit given by respondent no.1 under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 by condoning the delay in filing the appeal is, accordingly, affirmed.