Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
1. Petitioner is challenging the order dated 27.04.2012 passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation/ Additional Collector, Haridwar in Revision No.
09/2009-10. By the said order, the revision filed by Saddique under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was allowed and the
matter was remanded back to Settlement Officer, Consolidation to re-consider application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner with his appeal,
after hearing all the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order, Deputy Director, Consolidation had himself condoned the delay of about 9
months in filing the revision by Mr. Saddique, therefore, the order of remand passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation, only on the question of delay,
is unsustainable.
3. Per contra, Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 submits that there was delay of more than eight years in the
appeal filed by petitioner and there was no satisfactory explanation for such inordinate delay yet the Settlement Officer condoned the delay without
indicating any valid reason, therefore, learned Deputy Director, Consolidation was justified in remanding the matter back to the Settlement Officer,
Consolidation.
4. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of remand, especially when the remand is limited only to the question of condonation of delay.
Thus, there is no scope for interference with the impugned order passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation.
5. However, having regard to the fact that the order of the Appellate Court passed on 27.12.2008 was set-aside by the Revisional Court on
27.04.2012, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation is directed to decide the matter in terms of the remand order dated 27.04.2012, as early as possible,
but not later than four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
6. It goes without saying that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation shall consider the delay condonation application of the petitioner on merits, without
being prejudiced by any observation made in this order or the judgment rendered by Deputy Director of Consolidation.
7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
