JUDGMENT : Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. Notice on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 3 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas Mr. Yogendra Nath Yadav, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no.2. For the orders proposed, no need to issue notice to opposite parties no.4, 5 and 6, as such, notice to opposite parties no.4, 5 and 6 is dispensed with. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for Gaon Sabha and perused the records. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the validity of order dated 5.8.2015, whereby the application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act in Revision No. 734 has been allowed at the cost of Rs.500/- and the matter has been directed to be listed for hearing on merit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application for condonation of delay was filed on the ground that the earlier lawyer who was engaged to file the revision had not filed revision within time due to which the delay was caused. It is contended that petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 513 (Cons.) of 2015 which was dismissed with the observations that the revisional Court shall consider all the material evidence while considering the important question of condonation of delay and shall be satisfied about the genuineness of delay in filing of the revision and only thereafter the delay should be condoned. The observations made by the Court has not been considered in right spirit and by taking new grounds the application for condonation of delay has been allowed which cannot be done. 5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that there is no infirmity in the order impugned. The Apex Court in the case of Shanti Prasad Gupta v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Camp at Meerut and others, 1984 RD Page 382 has held that the discretion of consolidation authorities with respect to condonation of delay and extending time under Section 5 of Limitation Act cannot be lightly interfered with. 6. I have considered the submissions made by parties' counsel and gone through the records. 7. Director of Consolidation, Camp at Meerut and others, 1984 RD Page 382 has held that the discretion of consolidation authorities with respect to condonation of delay and extending time under Section 5 of Limitation Act cannot be lightly interfered with. 6. I have considered the submissions made by parties' counsel and gone through the records. 7. It is to be noted that this Court vide order dated 17.7.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 513 (Cons.) of 2015 while dismissing the writ petition filed by petitioner had made following observations:- "The revision preferred by the respondents has not yet been admitted and the revisional Court has not yet decided the question of condonation of delay in filing of the revision as yet. It is for the revisional Court to consider all material facts while considering the important question of condonation of delay in filing of the revision. Needless to observe that the revisional Court shall be satisfied about the genuineness of the delay in filing of the revision and only thereafter the delay should be condoned. Since the matter is pending consideration with the revisional Court, I do not find any reason to grant indulgence, at this stage. The writ petition, with the aforesaid observations, is accordingly dismissed." As such, it was for the revisional Court to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act in the said revision. The revisional Court by the impugned order has decided the application for condonation of delay by making observations that revisionist appears to be having rural background and due to his ignorance could not approach the court earlier. The lenient view shall be adopted in dealing with the matters relating to condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay has been allowed at the cost of Rs.500/-. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Shanti Prasad Gupta (supra) has held that order of Consolidation Officer holding that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay extending time under Section 5 of Limitation Act did not suffer from any material irregularity or impropriety, the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not justified in overriding the same in exercise of powers under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act and the discretion of Consolidation Officer in this regard cannot be lightly interfered with. The relevant paragraph on reproduction reads as under:- "Whether or not there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay, is a question of fact dependent upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case, and the proposition is well settled that when order has been made under Section 5, Limitation Act by the lower curt in the exercise of its discretion allowing or refusing an application to extend time, it cannot be interfered with in revision, unless the lower court has acted with material irregularity or contrary to law or has come to that conclusion on no evidence. We are aware that the powers of the Dy. Director under Section 48 of the Act are wider than those mentioned in Section 115 of the Code of the Civil Procedure. Even so, the Director cannot lightly interfere with the discretion of Consolidation Officer, unless the order sought to be revised is clearly erroneous or is likely to cause gross miscarriage of justice. Such was not the case here. 9. In view of above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. The writ petition being devoid of is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.