IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO.1084 OF 2003 Kashi Ram & others …………..Petitioners Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation & others ……………Respondents Sri Lokpal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Sri R.C. Arya, Brief Holder for the State Dated: June 23, 2009 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 15.2.2003 and 28.8.2003 passed by Respondent Nos.2-Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Respondent No.1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar respectively. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. In brief the facts of the case are that the Consolidation Officer vide order-dated 26.6.1992 as per the Survey Report, directed the Gata Nos.9/1, 9/2 and 9/3 to be recorded in the Revenue Records. Against that order, Respondent No.3-Pitamber Singh preferred an appeal on 3.2.1998 along with application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of six years in filing the appeal. On that application, Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation-Respondent No.2 vide order dated 15.2.2003 allowed the delay condonation application and accordingly condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Against that order dated 15.2.2003, the petitioners preferred Revision which was decided by Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector, Haridwar vide judgment and order dated 28.8.2003 by which the revision preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed. Against the aforesaid judgments and orders dated 15.2.2003 and 28.8.2003, the present petition has been preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Respondent No.2 i.e. Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation has wrongly allowed the delay condonation application of the respondent no.3. I do not find any force in this argument. Some of the grounds taken by the respondent no.3 in delay condonation application are that he received the copy of order on 2.2.1998 and after due consultation, he immediately preferred the appeal on 3.2.1998. It was further stated that he is an old and weak person and is unaware about the consolidation proceedings due to which he could not get information earlier. As such, he prayed that his application for delay condonation application may be allowed and the case may be directed to be decided on merits. Even the Respondent No.2 in his judgment has rightly recorded the finding that as per the settled law, the case is to be decided on its merits after affording proper opportunity of oral and documentary evidence and not on technical grounds. Accordingly, the court below rightly allowed the application of condonation of delay. Consequently, the order dated 28.8.2003 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar-Respondent No.1 is also correct in confirming the order dated 15.2.2003 passed by Respondent No.2 as the grounds stated by the respondent no.3 in his application were sufficient and the delay was sufficiently been explained. Besides this, Respondent No.1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar has also rightly held in his judgment that order dated 15.2.2003 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation is not a final order rather it is an interlocutory order against which the revision is not maintainable. Accordingly, the revision preferred by the petitioners was rightly been dismissed. For the reasons as stated above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 24.10.2003 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) June 23, 2009 Rajeev Dang