IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 523 of 2005 (M/S) Amit S/O Shri Rajendra and two others. ……. Petitioners Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Additional Collector, Haridwar and another. ………Respondents Sri Pramod Tewari, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri R.C. Arya, Brief Holder for the State- respondents. Date December 11, 2008 Hon’ble B. S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioners have preferred the writ petition for quashing the impugned order dated 22-3-2005 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector, Haridwar (for short the D.D.C) in Revision No. 419 of 2003-04, State Vs. Amit and others, under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, whereby delay in filing the revision has been condoned and the revision has been admitted for hearing on merits. According to the petitioners, consolidation proceedings are going on in village Thithki Kawadpur, Pargana Manglour, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. In pursuance of order 23-9-1998 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Chak has been allotted to the petitioner and C.H. Form 23 was issued to the petitioners. From a perusal of record, it is obvious that when the order dated 23-9-1998 came to the notice of the State, the State filed revision before the D.D.C. along with an application for condonation of delay. The D.D.C after hearing both the parties allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by a detailed order dated 22-3-2005, which gave rise to the present writ petition. The State has filed its counter affidavit. At the outset, 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)] I supreme Court Cases, page 119]. It is not disputed that the State and affected persons were not heard by the Consolidation Officer before passing the order dated 23-9-1998. Aggrieved by the order dated 23-9-1998, the State preferred a revision accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay before the D.D.C. To my mind, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rightly allowing by the D.C.C. In the settlement proceedings, rightly 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 dated 22-3-2005 does not call for any interference. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed outright. The writ petition is dismissed. The D.D.C. shall decide the revision petition on merits, filed by the State, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Costs easy. Interim order dated 25-5-2005 passed by this Court is vacated. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S. Verma,J.) RCP