RAM HET SINGH Vs. D D C MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHITLA Prasad Srivastava, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 14-5-1996. THE facts as stated in the writ petition that the petitioner filed appeal alongwith Section 5 application which was allowed and against that order, the contest ing respondents filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has al lowed the revision with the finding that the petitioner has not given sufficient cause for condonation of delay and in his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the day to day delay was not explained.

(3.) KEEPING in view the observations made by the Supreme Court, (supra), the writ petition is allowed and order dated 14-5-1996 is quashed. The Settlement Of ficer Consolidation is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously. Petition allowed. .