JUDGMENT Hon’ble Y.K. Sangal, J.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 18.3.2006 and 4.3.2004 passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Collector, Gonda respectively. 2. By the order (Annexure -2) Collector, Gonda has rejected the application of the petitioner for setting aside the Patta issued in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the revisional Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are that land of plot No. 490 area 0.065 situated in village Baijpur Pargana and Tehsil & district Gonda was allotted in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in the year, 1975. Application for cancellation of these Pattas was moved by the petitioner on 4.3.2003 which was dismissed by the trial Court, Collector Gonda on the main ground that application for cancellation of the Patta was moved beyond 28 years and no sufficient reason to condone the delay was given. Revision filed against the order was also dismissed by the revisional Court confirming the order passed by the Trial Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that from the last 25 years petitioner was in possession of the land in dispute and he had constructed Pucca house there and is living in the said house. Under what authority and provision, he has occupied this land and raised constructions under whose permission, it is nowhere clarified in the writ petition. Further it was pleaded that for the first time on 4.10.2003, respondent Nos. 3 to 10 along with other persons tried to dispossess him saying that Land Management Committee as granted lease of the land in their favour. After Dushehra vacation on 7.10.2003, petitioner contacted with the Lekhpal to verify the lease and moved an application on 4.3.2004 under Section 198 of Z.A.& L.R. Act for cancellation of the Patta in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 but illegally and in arbitrary manner, his this application was rejected by the Collector Gonda vide order dated 4.3.2004. 6. Giving detailed and sufficient reasons and saying that day to delay has not been explained and the application is highly time barred, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 but illegally and in arbitrary manner, his this application was rejected by the Collector Gonda vide order dated 4.3.2004. 6. Giving detailed and sufficient reasons and saying that day to delay has not been explained and the application is highly time barred, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have acquired the Bhumidhari right on the property in dispute after the Patta, no person has any right to encroach on the land of the Gaon Sabha and to raise constructions without any permission and authority. In the revision filed by the petitioner, revisional Court found that no sufficient ground for condoning the delay in filing the suit has been shown and confirmed the order of the trial Court. 7. This revision was dismissed by the Commissioner on 18.3.2006 but now as per office report the petitioner has preferred this writ petition with delay i.e. after 3 years 4 months and 16 days against the order of the Commissioner. Cause for this delay was shown that when recently on 31.8.2009 respondent Nos. 3 to 5 had tried to take forceful possession only then he inquired in the matter and came to know that his revision has already been decided and dismissed. As per his own case on 31.8.2009 respondents had tried to dispossess him and this writ petition has been filed on 5.11.2009 after two months. Again no sufficient cause has been shown about this delay in filing the writ petition. This all shows that at each stage in the matter there is delay on the part of the petitioner. It is established law that every day delay is to be explained. The relevant consideration is that the right which accrues to the other party by the expiration of the period of limitation should not be disturbed lightly. After expiry of period of limitation, a right accrues to the other side. Court ought not to be light hearted so to disturb this legal right. Condonation of delay is not a matter of right. Parties shoud pursue their rights and remedies promptly and not sleep over their rights. Even discretion lies with the Court to condone the delay or not. Matter of right is not there. 8. In the present case after allotment of the land in the year, 1975 to the respondent Nos. 3 to 5, they have acquired Bhumdhari rights in the land in dispute. Even discretion lies with the Court to condone the delay or not. Matter of right is not there. 8. In the present case after allotment of the land in the year, 1975 to the respondent Nos. 3 to 5, they have acquired Bhumdhari rights in the land in dispute. Patta in favour of the respondents came into notice of the petitioner on 4/7.10.2003. Even then he had filed the case under Section 198 of the Act after 5 months i.e. on 4.3.2004. This application was dismissed on the ground of inordinate unexplained delay and revision was also dismissed on the same ground. Even then he has not wake up and again he has not challenged the order of the revisional Court for a period of 3 years 4 months and 16 days, as per the office report, although, he was in knowledge of the dismissal of the revision as per his own case on 31.8.2009 but this writ petition has been filed on 5.11.2009. 9. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality, invalidity and impropriety in the impugned order and also no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay in filing the writ petition. Petitioner has not come in this Court with clean hands and the writ petition has not been filed bonafidely. No interference of this Court in the circumstances of the case in the impugned order passed by the two Courts below arises. The writ petition has no force and it is accordingly, hereby dismissed. ————