JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, for the petitioners and Sri Awadhesh Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri Janardan Singh Yadav, for respondents-4 and 5. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation, dated 3.4.2010 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 29.9.2014, passed in the proceeding under section 9-B of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The dispute is in respect of plot 477 (area 0-4-6 bigha) of village Kusmuhikhurd, tahsil Saidpur, district Ghazipur, which was the original holding of the petitioners. During partial land in dispute was recorded as 'parati' land and was recorded as such in CH Form-2-A. At the time of preparation of Statement of Principles' valuation of this plot was determined at the rate of 10 paisa and an area of 0-0-10 bigha was reserved for burning "holika". The village was notified under section 9of the Act, in the year 1988. The petitioners did not file any objection either against the determination of valuation of plot 477 or reserving an area of 0-0-10 bigha of this plot for burning "holika". Thereafter Provisional Consolidation Scheme was framed in which remaining area of 0-3-16 bigha of plot 477 was allotted in the chak of respondents-4 and 5. The village was notified under section 20 of the Act in the year 1989 but the petitioners did not file any objection under section 20 of the Act against the allotment of plot 477 in the chak of respondents-4 and 5 and chaks were confirmed. 3. The petitioners filed a time barred objection on 4.2.2009 (registered as Case No. 2035 of 2009-10) for deleting the valuation of plot 477 and keeping this plot as chak out along with delay condonation application. In the objection, the petitioners have stated that the land in dispute was adjacent to abadi and was used as 'sahan' land through out. It is only when delivery of possession over the confirmed chak took place in the year 2008, then they came to know that valuation was determined of the land in dispute and it was allotted to respondents-4 and 5. Land in dispute was never in cultivation and is liable to keep as chak out. Determination of its valuation and allotment in the chak of respondents-4 and 5 was illegal. Land in dispute was never in cultivation and is liable to keep as chak out. Determination of its valuation and allotment in the chak of respondents-4 and 5 was illegal. Respondents-4 and 5 filed their objection and contested the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as well as the objection. They have stated that land in dispute was cultivatory land and its valuation was rightly determined at the time of preparation of Statement of Principles' at the rate of 10 paisa and an area of 0-0-10 bigha was reserved for burning "holika". The village was notified under section 9 of the Act, in the year 1988. The petitioners did not file any objection either against the determination of valuation of plot 477 or reserving an area of 0-0-10 bigha of this plot for burning "holika". Thereafter Provisional Consolidation Scheme was framed in which remaining area of 0-3-16 bigha of plot 477 was allotted in the chak of respondents-4 and 5. The village was notified under section 20 of the Act in the year 1989 but the petitioners did not file any objection under section 20 of the Act against the allotment of plot 477 in the chak of respondents-4 and 5. Entire proceeding was in the knowledge of the petitioners and there was no ground for condonation of inordinate delay of 22-23 years. The claim of the petitioner has become barred under section 11-A of the Act. 4. The matter was heard by Consolidation Officer who by order dated 10.2.2010 held that during spot inspection land in dispute was found as roadside land of commercial value. On these findings delay in filing the objection was condoned and valuation of an area of 0-3-16 bigha of plot 477 was deleted and kept as chak out. It may be mentioned that an area of 0-0-10 bigha of this plot which was reserved for burning "holika" was maintained. Respondents-4 and 5 filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 1856) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 3.4.2010, found that Consolidation Officer has not recorded any reason for condonation of inordinate delay of about 22 years. Village was notified under section 9 in the year 1988. Entire consolidation proceedings had become final and final consolidation records were prepared for notification under section 52 of the Act. Village was notified under section 9 in the year 1988. Entire consolidation proceedings had become final and final consolidation records were prepared for notification under section 52 of the Act. The claim of the petitioners have become barred under section 11-A of the Act. At this stage, if the land in dispute is kept chak out, it will reopen the consolidation proceedings as it will affect several persons. On these findings, the appeal was allowed and order of Consolidation Officer was set aside and objection of the petitioners was dismissed. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1545) against the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 4.3.2014, dismissed the revision. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 5. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that delivery of possession over the confirmed chak has taken place in the village in the year 2008 and the objection was filed by the petitioners on 4.2.2009. The land in dispute was through out 'parati' land on the spot and was used as sahan land by the petitioners. It is only when delivery of possession was made in the year 2008, then for the first time, the petitioners came to know about determination of valuation of this plot and allotment in the chak of the respondents. The Consolidation Officer held that in spot inspection land in dispute was found as roadside land of commercial value. Determination of its valuation at the rate of 10 paisa and allotment in the chak of the respondents was highly prejudicial to the petitioners. Looking to the grave hardship of the petitioners, delay in filing the objection was condoned and valuation of an area of 0-3-16 bigha of plot 477 was deleted and kept as chak out. Discretion for condonation of delay vests in Consolidation Officer, who has exercised his discretion to prevent miscarriage of justice. Settlement Officer Consolidation has illegally interfered with the discretion of the original authority. The objection of the petitioners was under section 9-B of the Act along with delay condonation application and in such circumstances, provisions of section 11-A of the Act was not applicable. The revision of the petitioner was also dismissed without considering the grievances of the petitioner. Orders of respondents-1 and 2 are illegal and liable to be set aside. The objection of the petitioners was under section 9-B of the Act along with delay condonation application and in such circumstances, provisions of section 11-A of the Act was not applicable. The revision of the petitioner was also dismissed without considering the grievances of the petitioner. Orders of respondents-1 and 2 are illegal and liable to be set aside. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Lalasa v. State of U.P. 2014 (123) RD 371 . 6. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record. Under section 9(2) of the Act, 21 days limitation has been provided for filing objection after receipt of notice in CH Form-5 or of the publication of the village under section 9(1) of the Act. Respondents-1 and 2 found that the village was published under section 9(1) of the Act in the year 1988. The petitioners have no where denied service of CH Form-5 upon them. Only reason has been given for condonation of delay that delivery of possession in the village over confirmed chak was done in the year 2008 and then the petitioners came to know that valuation of plot 477 was determined and its some area was allotted to respondents-4 and 5. Delivery of possession over confirmed chaks is not relevant for filing of the objection under section 9(2) of the Act. Thus for condonation of inordinate delay of about 22 years no reason was given. Settlement Officer Consolidation has rightly found that Consolidation Officer had not recorded any reason for condonation of delay. 7. Supreme Court in Lanka Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P. 2011 (86) ALR 59 (SC), held that whilst considering applications for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason. Whims or fancies; prejudices or predilections cannot and should not form the basis of exercising discretionary powers. 8. Supreme Court in Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason. Whims or fancies; prejudices or predilections cannot and should not form the basis of exercising discretionary powers. 8. Supreme Court in Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai 2012 (116) RD 392 (SC) : 2012 (92) ALR 460, held that what needs to be emphasised is that even though a liberal and justice-oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost. What colour the expression "sufficient cause" would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay. 9. Settlement Officer Consolidation found that after determination of valuation of plot 477, its some area was allotted in the chak of respondents-4 and 5. In case, it is taken from their chak, then chak allotment dispute which had become final in the village will be reopen. In such circumstances, condonation of delay without any explanation was not found proper. Resorts given by Settlement Officer consolidation for allowing the appeal was valid reasons. 10. So far as the contention of the petitioners that land in dispute was a roadside land and was having commercial value is concerned, the petitioners did not raise any such plea. Consolidation Officer, during spot inspection found that the land in dispute was situated by the side of road. There was nothing on record to show that at that place any commercial activities was going on. Consolidation Officer, during spot inspection found that the land in dispute was situated by the side of road. There was nothing on record to show that at that place any commercial activities was going on. In any case, for condonation of inordinate delay, merit of the case was made sole consideration, which is illegal. In view of the aforesaid discussions, there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.