This writ petition arises out of Consolidation Proceedings and the petitioner has prayed that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 2-6-1975 passed in a revision filed by respondents nos. 2 and 3 under section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) be quashed. The case raises a question of law of some importance inasmuch as it involves a consideration of the propriety or the circumstances in which an order setting aside another order condoning the delay in filing the objections should be interfered with by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In a nutshell the facts of the case are that according to the averments made in the writ petition the petitioner filed objection under section 9 of the Act in respect of Khatas Nos. 39, 227, 166 and 625 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and that he also filed another set of objections in respect of Khatas Nos. 230 and 231. The controversy between the parties is, however, now confined to Khata No. 231. It appears that when the matter was taken up by the Consolidation Officer the contesting respondents Nos. 2 and 3 made an application that the two sets of objections could not be consolidated in law and should be considered separately. This application was, however, dismissed by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 3-12-1974. A revision was preferred against the aforesaid order by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and the same was allowed by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25-1-1975 and the Consolidation Officer was directed to dispose of the objections in accordance with law. It was, however, observed in the said order that there was no reference by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in respect of Khata No. 231. When the matter went back, the petitioner filed afresh objection with respect to Khata No. 231 along with an affidavit stating that he had already filed an objection with respect to the said plot but the Assistant Consolidation Officer had omitted to include the same in his order of reference, of which fact the petitioner was ignorant until the order dated 25-1-1975 was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and consequently by way of abundant caution fresh objections were being filed and a prayer was made for condonation of the delay. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 objected to this prayer of the petitioner and by means of an affidavit they said that the petitioner had no rights with respect to the said Khata and the objections them being filed beyond the period of limitation were liable to be dismissed and no ground for condonation of delay had been made out. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 3-4-1975 condoned the delay and entertained the fresh objections subject to payment of Rs. 25/- as costs. This order was challenged by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision by his order dated 2-6-1975 and set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer which had condoned the delay, [t is in these circumstances that this writ petition has been filed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the question of -law which has been posed in the opening part of the judgment has been canyassed before me. Before dealing with the legal problem I would, however, like to make it clear that the Deputy Director of Consolidation in substance had arrived at a finding in his impugned order that the two objections had been initially filed in Khata No. 231 and, therefore, the only point which falls for decision is as to whether in the circumstances the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which had thj effect of refusing to condone the delay notwithstanding a contrary discretion having been exercised by the lower authority in favour of the petitioner, was erroneous in law so as to merit interference by this court. I cannot refrain from expressing my general views o