IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 501 of 2005 (M/S) Ved Pal S/O Atar Singh, R/O Village-Thithki Kawadpur, Pargana- Manglaur, Tehsil- Roorkee, District Haridwar. …… Petitioner. 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 petitioner. Sri R.C.Arya, Brief Holder for the State-respondents. Date December 29, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner has 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. 447 of 2003-04, State Vs. Ved Pal 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 29-11-1998 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Chak has been allotted to the petitioner and C.H. Form 23 was issued to the petitioner. From a perusal of record, it is obvious that when the order dated 29-11-1998 came to the notice of the State, the State filed revision before the D.D.C. along with an application for 2 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. In the course of arguments, learned Brief Holder appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the facts of this writ petition are identical to the facts of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 523 of 2005, Amit Vs. D.D.C. and another and the controversy involved in the present writ petition stands resolved by the order dated 11-12-2008 passed by this Court in that writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded to this fact. I have perused the order dated 11-12-2008 passed by this Court. The facts of the present writ petition are almost similar to the facts of the Writ Petition (M/S) No. 523 of 2005 decided by this Court. 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]. 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 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 3 order 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 (No. 447/2003-04, State Vs. Vedpal and others) 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. Costs easy. Interim order dated 19-5-2005 passed by this Court is vacated. All pending applications stand disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4