THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1390 of 2008. Abhishek Rana S/O Shri Rajeev Rana (minor) through guardian Smt. Mamta W/O Shri Rajeev Rana and another. … Petitioners. Vs. Ravindra Giri S/O Shri Tara Giri, R/O Village Rahmatpur, Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. …Respondent. Sri Lokpal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Alok Singh, Senior Advocate, with Sri P.Tangwan, learned counsel for the respondent. Date September 25, 2008. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 15-6-2006 passed by the Consolidation Officer Roorkee V as well as the order dated 28-6-2008 passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Haridwar, (for short the D.D.C.). By the order dated 15-6-2006, the Consolidation Officer has condoned the delay in filing the objection. By the same order, the objection of the respondent Ravindra Giri was rejected by the Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision before the D.D.C. Haridwar and respondent Ravindra Giri preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Roorkee (for short the S.O.C.), which is pending for disposal. The grievance of the petitioners is that the possession of Chaks was delivered to the petitioners in the year 1998, while the 2 respondent had filed objection in the year 2006 after a delay of eight years. When the petitioners came to know that delay was condoned by the Consolidation Officer, they filed recall application, which is pending. According to the petitioners, the revisional court, without considering the aspect that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners on the delay condonation application, dismissed the revision. It is well settled that the matter of condonation of delay is between the court and the applicant, who filed objection. The petitioners have to be heard before disposing of the objection finally, but the Consolidation Officer has already dismissed the objection of the respondent and the appeal preferred by the respondent is still pending before the S.O.C. The revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed. The consolidation proceeding is settlement proceeding and after close of the consolidation proceedings no person has a right to re-open the proceeding if the title has been finally decided by the consolidation courts. Nowhere it is stated that the consolidation proceedings have become final. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners must have been heard on the point of condonation of delay by the Consolidation Officer is concerned, the same is not tenable for the simple reason that it is well settled that the power of the court to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is discretionary and courts should be liberal in exercise of this power. 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, S.C.C. Page 119]. In the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 3 The writ petition is dismissed. However, the S.O.C. shall decide the appeal filed by the respondent, after hearing both the parties on merits expeditiously without any further delay preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioners can also argue the appeal on maintainability before the S.O.C. Costs easy. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP