IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1397 of 2005 (M/S) Talwinder Singh S/O Sri Karnel Singh and another. …… Petitioners. Versus State of Uttaranchal, through Collector Udham Singh Nagar and three others. … Respondents. WITH Writ Petition No. 1396 of 2005 (M/S) Talwinder Singh S/O Sri Karnel Singh and another. …… Petitioners. Versus State of Uttaranchal, through Collector Udham Singh Nagar and three others. … Respondents. Sri Bharat Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the State-respondents. Date December 10, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Since the controversy involved in both these writ petitions is similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided by this common judgment. Challenge in both the writ petitions is to the order dated 11-11-2005 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector, Udham Singh Nagar (for short D.D.C.), whereby the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, which was filed by the State- 2 respondent, has been allowed and the delay in filing the revision has been condoned. Relevant facts giving rise to these writ petitions in brief are that according to the petitioners, they are in possession of the disputed land for the last 25-26 years and on the basis of possession, they have matured right, title and interest thereon. During the consolidation proceedings, the Consolidation Officer had recorded the names of the petitioners in Varg IV by order dated 3-2-1996 (copy Annexure No. 1). Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation Udham Singh Nagar (for short S.O.C.). It is not disputed that the petitioners had not impleaded either the State through Collector or the Gaon Sabha as respondents to the appeal, though they claim their rights over the Banjar land of Gaon Sabha. The learned S.O.C. allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner by his order dated 3-10-1997. It was ordered that the entry of Varg IV in the name of the petitioners be cancelled and their names be recorded in Varg I Bhumidhar with transferable rights in the revenue records. When this fact came to the notice of the State-respondents, the State preferred revision petitions before the D.D.C. Along with the revision petition, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in each revision was also filed, which was allowed by the impugned order dated 11-11-2005 by the learned D.D.C., which gave rise to the present writ petitions. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the entire material on record, it is evident that the petitioners did not array the State as well as Gaon Sabha as respondents to the appeal. Hence, there is no question of knowledge of appeal to the State. When the fact that appeal was allowed by the S.O.C. came to the notice of the State, State filed revision petition before the D.D.C. 3 It is pertinent to mention that to condone the delay is the discretionary power of the Court and it is well settled that Courts should be liberal in condoning the delay. I am fortified in my view by the Apex Court judgment in the case of Apangshu Mohan Lodh and others Vs. State of Tripura and others [(2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases, Page 119]. Since the State was not a party before the S.O.C., the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rightly allowed by the D.D.C. In the settlement proceedings, rights of the parties have to be decided finally. The learned D.D.C. has not committed any error in allowing the application for condonation of delay. The impugned order dated 11-11-2005 does not call for any interference. The writ petitions are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed outright. Both the writ petitions are dismissed. However, the State is directed to array Gaon Sabha in revision petitions before the D.D.C. The D.D.C. shall decide the revision petitions on merits, filed by the State, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order without being influenced by the order of this Court. Costs easy. All pending applications stand disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4