So the companyplaint is that the order which has been passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation is bad in law and was passed ignoring the bar of limitation.
One of the grievances which has been raised by the appellants herein is that the order of Consolidation Officer dated 23.12.1981 and that of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 29.11.1982, have been upset by the Deputy Director, Consolidation while entertaining a revision filed by the companytesting respondents on 10.8.1993, which according to the appellant, is barred by limitation.
That is the main challenge before us.
At that time the orders dated 23.12.1981 and 29.11.1982 were passed.
They filed a revision application along with an application for companydonation of delay in the year 1993.
In the revision application, the Deputy Director Consolidation, while relying on a number of judgments, held that the revision cannot be treated as barred by time.
A revision application was filed under the provisions of the said Act by the companytesting respondent Nos.
1 and 2 before the Deputy Director Consolidation, Agra as they were aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer and the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director reversed the findings of both the Consolidation Officer and those of Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
The admitted facts of the case are that in the year 1981 and 1982 both Haribabu and Antram, the companytesting respondent Nos.1 and 2, were minors.
GANGULY, J. Leave granted.
This appeal arises out of a companysolidation proceeding under the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the said Act .
