RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the orders dated 18. 1. 2001 and 30. 3. 2000, passed by the commissioner (Administration), Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur and the Sub-Divisional magistrate, Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria, respectively. ( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition are that during consolidation operation in the village plot No. 236 measuring 13 decimal was reserved for khalihan purposes. The petitioner was allotted a chak over plot No. 212 measuring 15 decimal with the valuation of 22 paise. The petitioner proposed to the Land Management Committee for exchange of plot No. 212 with plot no. 236 in front of his house. The Land Management Committee passed a resolution for exchange of the land of khalihan with plot No. 212 belonging to the petitioner. It was further resolved that the petitioner may also seek permission of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under section 161 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. ( 4 ) THE petitioner thereafter moved the application before respondent No. 2 under Section 161 of the Act which was registered as Case No. 51 of 1995. A report was also submitted by the Land revenue Inspector on 24. 3. 1995 staling that the difference in the rental valuations of the two plots is less than 10 per cent. By order dated 25. 7. 1995 respondent No. 2 allowed the application of the petitioner for exchange of the plots and directed for correction in the relevant records accordingly. Consequently the petitioner was recorded as bhumidhar of plot No. 236 in the revenue records and he took possession of the same. ( 5 ) IT is submitted that respondent No. 3. who was on inimical terms with the petitioner, without any locus standi moved an application dated 14. 5. 1999, after four years for recalling of the order, of respondent No. 2 dated 25. 7. 1995 passed in Case No. 51 of 1995 along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the same stating the order to have been passed ex parte. The petitioner filed objection to the application for condonation of delay on 27. 8. 1999. The petitioner also moved an application dated 21. 1. 2000 stating that respondent No. 3 was not entitled to get benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner filed objection to the application for condonation of delay on 27. 8. 1999. The petitioner also moved an application dated 21. 1. 2000 stating that respondent No. 3 was not entitled to get benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 30. 3. 2000, rejected the application of the petitioner dated 21. 1. 2000 and condoned the delay in filing the restoration application by respondent No. 3 fixing 7. 4. 2000 for arguments on the restoration application. Aggrieved by the order of respondent No. 2 the petitioner preferred a revision before respondent No. 1 which was also rejected vide order dated 18. 1. 2001. ( 6 ) CONDONATION of delay is a discretionary matter. The petitioner has challenged the order of respondent No. 2 dated 30. 3. 2000, condoning the delay in filing the application by respondent no. 3 for recalling the order dated 25. 7. 1995. The application to recall/restoration of the order dated 25. 7. 1995 is yet to be decided by respondent No. 2 and only the application to condone the delay in filing the same has been decided by respondent No. 2. The contention of the petitioner that sufficient cause has not been shown by respondent No. 3 for recalling of the order dated 25. 7. 1995 is yet to be examined by respondent No. 2. ( 7 ) FOR these reasons the writ petition is dismissed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the matter regarding restoration/recall of his order dated 25. 7. 1995, by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him by either of the parties. Interim order dated 14. 5. 2001 is vacated. No order as to costs. .