Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Vijay Krishna Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Amresh Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

2. Through this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.2.2014 passed by the Assistant Collector First Class/Tehsildar Sadar, Pilibhit, District Pilibhit in Case No. 39/2013-14 (Gaon Sabha v. Dodram) and the order dated 8.8.2014 passed by the Collector, Pilibhit in case No. D2014125600497 (Doodram v. Gram Samaj).

3. vide order dated 20.2.2014 the proceeding initiated by the Gaon Sabha under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) being Case No. 39/2013-14 (Gaon Sabha v. Dodram) was allowed and the petitioner’s possession over the land in dispute was found to be unauthorised, therefore, an order of dispossession has also been passed after imposing damages of Rs. 1,440/- alongwith execution cost of Rs. 5/-. The revision filed by the petitioner against the the aforesaid order has been dismissed as barred by time vide order dated 8.8.2014.

4. The facts giving rise to this case are that the Gaon Sabha has initiated a proceeding against the petitioner under Section 122-B of the Act which was allowed and damages of Rs. 1440/- alongwith execution cost was also imposed.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner has filed revision before the Collector Pilibhit which was numbered as case No. D2014125600497 (Doodram v. Gram Samaj). The revision was barred by time, therefore, an application for condonation of delay was also filed. The Collector Pilibhit has found that the revision is barred by two months and ten days and there is no satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay, therefore, he rejected the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. and dismissed the revision as barred by time. Aforesaid orders are under challenge before this Court.

6. Learned standing counsel as well the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha on being confronted as to whether they propose of file counter-affidavit or not, they submit that the writ petition may be decided on its own merits on the basis of the material available on record.

7. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

8. It is not in dispute that the order of eviction was passed against the petitioner on 20.2.2014. Against that order revision was filed on 2.5.2014. The limitation for filing the revision is 30 days. In the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner the revision was barred by only 40 days and not 2 months and 10 days. He has also contended that since the wife of the petitioner was doing pairvy of the case he was not made aware of order prior to April, 2014, therefore, revision could not be filed earlier and immediately after coming to know steps have been taken to challenge the order passed by the Assistant Collector but because of the strike of lawyers in the lower Court the revision could not be filed earlier.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that delay was not deliberate and whatever delay has occurred that was beyound the control of the applicant. He further contends that there has been consistent insistence of the Apex Court as well as this Court that while considering the delay condonation application the Court should take liberal view and in case there is some substance on merit the delay should be condoned. In support of his submission he has placed reliance of the decision of this Court in Ramesh v. Collector, (2013) 2 Laws 186 (All).

10. Here in this case as per learned counsel for the petitioner the revision was barred by time by 40 days and not two months and ten days as recorded by the Court below.

11. It may be noticed that the order impugned in the revision was passed on 20.2.2014 and the revision wa