JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Satendra Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Ramji Singh Patel and Sri Shamimul Hasnain holding brief of Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 10.12.2014 by which the delay has been condoned in filing the appeal and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 9.3.2015 dismissing the revision of the petitioners against the aforesaid order. 2. The dispute between the parties relates to land of khata Nos. 106, 176, 203 and 305. It is alleged that the matter was compromised in between the parties before the Assistant Consolidation Officer by order dated 19.4.1966 in respect of khata Nos. 106, 176 and 305. On the allegation that compromise was in respect of four khatas i.e. khata Nos. 106, 176, 203 and 305 but inadvertently khata No. 203 was not included in it, the petitioners filed a fresh objection under section 9-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 along with an application for condonation of delay. Initially the delay condonation application was rejected. The petitioners challenged the order in Writ Petition No. 9982 of 1979. According to the petitioners, Radhey Shyam filed a counter affidavit sworn on 8.5.1980 admitting the compromise in respect of khata Nos. 106, 176 and 305. Later on they challenged the order dated 19.4.1966 in appeal on 24.2.2008 along with an application for condonation of delay. In delay condonation application they had alleged that the alleged compromise was entered into between the parties at the time when sons of Ram Adhar were minor. It is only when they went to High Court for preparation of arguments in Writ Petition No. 9982 of 1979 filed by Muniraj and others then for the first time they could know about the alleged compromise. Accordingly, the appeal was filed. The delay was liable to be condoned. The petitioner filed an objection as well as counter affidavit in delay condonation application and had contended that since Radhey Shyam himself filed his counter affidavit in Writ Petition No. 9982 of 1979 on 8.5.1980 in which he had admitted filing of compromise as such there was no cause for condoning the delay. The delay was liable to be condoned. The petitioner filed an objection as well as counter affidavit in delay condonation application and had contended that since Radhey Shyam himself filed his counter affidavit in Writ Petition No. 9982 of 1979 on 8.5.1980 in which he had admitted filing of compromise as such there was no cause for condoning the delay. Even after 1980 i.e. after filing counter affidavit the appeal was filed in the year 2008 i.e. about 28 years have expired otherwise there was a delay of about 42 years as such inordinate delay was not liable to be condoned. 3. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation after hearing the parties by order dated 10.12.2014 found that at the time of alleged compromise Radhey Shyam and his brothers were minor as such in case the delay is condoned then only they would be heard on merit. Otherwise, in case the delay is not condoned their right which has been compromised during their minority would be closed for ever. Accordingly, he condoned the delay and fixed a date for hearing. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in revision, which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that the order condoning the delay is an interlocutory order and revision is not maintainable. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 4. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue relating to condonation of delay is an issue exercising jurisdiction of the Court as such the order passed on the delay condonation application is not an interlocutory order but is a final order and the revision filed against it was maintainable but Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally failed to examine the merit of the case and dismissed the revision as not maintainable. So far as the Settlement Officer, Consolidation is concerned, he has ignored the own admission of Radhey Shyam in Writ Petition No. 9982 of 1979 in which Radhey Shyam had admitted filing of compromise in respect of khata Nos. 106, 176 and 305. Thus, at least Radhey Shyam had knowledge of the compromise and had acknowledged it in counter affidavit filed on 8.5.1980 and the delay was not liable to be condoned. 106, 176 and 305. Thus, at least Radhey Shyam had knowledge of the compromise and had acknowledged it in counter affidavit filed on 8.5.1980 and the delay was not liable to be condoned. The allegation that he came to know for the first time about the alleged compromise while preparation of the arguments in the said writ petition was false as he had already in the counter affidavit admitted the fact relating to compromise. On the false allegation the discretion of the Court was not liable to be exercised. 5. On the other hand Counsel for the contesting respondents submits that the parties were illiterate and during their minority the alleged compromise was filed. In the counter affidavit the fact relating to compromise was mentioned but according to the contesting respondents they fully informed about the compromise only at the time when the writ petition was being prepared for arguments by the counsel. Immediately thereafter, they filed the appeal. Khata No. 305 was exclusively recorded in the name of Ram Adhar and claim of cotenancy in respect of that khata was not admitted. During minority of the contesting respondents on the basis of compromise the petitioners were awarded co-tenancy right in khata not 305 for which they were not entitled. The contesting respondents have rightly challenged the order in appeal and their version that they for the first time came to know about the compromise while preparation of the writ petition, was accepted by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The higher Courts have no jurisdiction to re-examine the matter relating to condoning delay by the original authority as held by Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 Law Suit (SC) 872. He submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not decided the revision on merit but dismissed it as not maintainable being against an interlocutory order. The order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation does not suffer from any illegality and no interference is required by this Court. 6. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties. 7. So far as the counter affidavit is concerned, it is admitted that this counter affidavit was not filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Only judgment of the High Court dated 3.9.2009 was filed. In the judgment there is nothing to show that Radhey Shyam had admitted filing of compromise in the counter affidavit. 7. So far as the counter affidavit is concerned, it is admitted that this counter affidavit was not filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Only judgment of the High Court dated 3.9.2009 was filed. In the judgment there is nothing to show that Radhey Shyam had admitted filing of compromise in the counter affidavit. So far as filing of compromise is concerned Radhey Shyam has categorically submitted that it is only during the preparation of the argument of Writ Petition No. 9982 of 1979 they came to know about the compromise and their version has been accepted by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Thus, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Prasad Gupta v. D.D.C., 1981 (Suppl) SCC 73 and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, 1998 Law Suit (SC) 872 wherein it has been held that the matter of condonation of delay is the sole discretion of the original Court and in case the Court condones the delay the higher Courts should not interfere in the discretion condoning the delay. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.