The court has discretionary power to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, especially in cases related to consolidation proceedings, to meet the ends of justice.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased-revisionist before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Udham Singh Nagar (for short D.O. C.), have filed the present writ petition for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order 10-9-1999 (Annexure No.7), 27-11-1992 (Annexure No.5) and dated 24-4-1992 (Annexure No.3) passed by the respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 respectively. '

3. A revision no. 52/25 of 1998-99 Kulanand Vs. State under Section 48 of the UP. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed before the D.D.C. Udham Singh Nagar against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 27-11-1992. The case of the revisionist was that he is bhumidhar with transferable rights of settlement Gata No. 145/1 area 1.659 hectare land. In consolidation proceedings the area of his holding was reduced. He raised objection. By the order of the Consolidation Officer, Kashipur dated 24-4-1992 in Suit Nos. 459,460 and 461 the area was reduced from 1.659 to 1.380 hectare, against which appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation (S.D. C.), who dismissed the appeal on 27-11-1992. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revision No. 52/25 of 1998-99 was preferred before the D.D.C., which has been dismissed vide order dated 10-9-1999, as barred by limitation. The application for condo nation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also dismissed.

4. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been annexed with this writ petition. In that application, it was asserted that the appellant could not get any information regarding the hearing of appeal. It was also alleged that the appellant is an old man of 90 years and he has poor hearing capacity and weak eye-sight. It was also stated that the information regarding dismissal of appeal came to his notice when his sons came to house in August 1998. The delay in filing the revision was not deliberate. The D.D.C. did not find favour with the contention of the deceased-revisionist on the point of condo nation of delay and dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

5. 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.

6. It is true that there has been delay of more than six years in filing the revision. From a bare perusal of the copy of application for condo nation of delay filed along with memo of writ petition, it is obvious that the petitioner has categorically stated that he came to know of the real fact after a long time in August 1998. Admittedly, the revisionist Kulanand had died and the petitioners before this Court are his legal heirs.

7. 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]. The present matter relates to the consolidation proceedings and to meet the ends of justice, it will be in the fitness of things that the delay in filing the revision may be condoned and the revision is decided on merits.

8. In the circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the revision before the D.D.C. concerned is hereby condoned. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be allowed and the matter is liable to be remanded to the Revisional Court for deciding the revision on merit.

9. The writ petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 10-9-1999 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Udham Singh Nagar is hereby set aside. The application for condoning the delay in filing the revision is allowed. The respondent no.1 is directed to entertain the revision, hear b