JUDGMENT Sri S.K. Mishra, J. 1. Heard Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner assails the order dated 15.07.2021 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar, in Revision No. 114 of 2015, Smt. Shamima Khatoon vs. Musarrat, whereby the revisional authority under the Consolidation of Holdings Act has remanded the matter to the Officer in Court of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, to re-hear the appeal no. 88 on the question of limitation. The only challenge to the order passed by the revisional authority in this writ application is the question of delay. Admittedly, there has been a delay of about 13 years in preferring the application/objection before the Consolidation Officer, Roorkee. However, it is apparent from the records that the respondent obtained the order by fraud and misrepresentation in the order passed on 28.05.1997. As far the said order, plot no. 195 is concerned having an area of 0.0205 hectares, but 0.0410 hectares has been recorded. In other words, an additional land measuring 0.0395 hectares has been added in Gata (plot) No. 195. Similarly, in gata no. (plot) no. 197, instead of recording an area 0.0410 hectares, record has been made measuring 0.1741 hectares thereby recording 0.1331 hectares more than what, he is entitled to. In this way, in view of the order impugned before the revisional authority, in both the plots, a total area of 0.1726 hectares has been increased. The learned Commissioner held that such an action on the part of the Consolidation Authority is erroneous as there is no judicial and authoritative pronouncement to that effect to record the increase the area in plot nos. 195 and 197. It is further held by the learned revisional authority that the petitioners have purchased gata no. (plot no.) 272 with an area of 0.0493 hectares from Parvarish S/o Makshood, resident of Pohana. She has also purchased plot no. 273 measuring an area of 0.492 hectares from Ikbal S/o Abad Ali of village Pohana. The aforesaid two plots were, in course of time, recorded as Chack Nos. 48-A & 48-B, which is effected by the increase of an area of plot nos. 193 and 194. The petitioner was found to be in possession of Chack nos. 48-A and 48-B having right, title and interest. 3. The aforesaid two plots were, in course of time, recorded as Chack Nos. 48-A & 48-B, which is effected by the increase of an area of plot nos. 193 and 194. The petitioner was found to be in possession of Chack nos. 48-A and 48-B having right, title and interest. 3. The learned Revisional Authorities further observed in his order that though plot no. 193 and 194 were in possession of the petitioner, the present petitioner before us on 10.01.2011, on the basis of the impugned order, in which, the areas has been increased, tried to amalgamate it in plot nos. 195 and 197 by forcibly trying to occupy the lands of the neighbouring tenure-holders, as a result of which, the petitioner, respondent before us, before the Commissioner was prejudiced. Thus, the petitioner tried to take over the possession of the land belonging to respondent no. 1 by use of force. Thus, his actions are illegal and against the provisions of law. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, being the revisional authority under the Act, also came to the conclusion that the order passed originally on 28.05.1997 is absolutely without jurisdiction and he has no authority to increase the lands belonging to the petitioner by adding a total area of 0.1726 hectares has been increased, which shall affect the right, title and interest over the land in the possession of the sole respondent. 4. It is true that the initial objection filed by the respondent before the Consolidation Officer for correction of the records regarding the land of the petitioner by increasing its area which is led to a great manifest injustice and, therefore, the order passed by the Consolidation Officer originally appears to be illegal and for that reason the illegality committed by the Consolidation Officer, the respondents should not sufferer. In that view of the matter, he condoned the delay in filing the objection, appeal etc. and remanded the matter to the court of the Settlement Officer Consolidation for re-hearing according to law and disposal of the same on merit. 5. This court has been consistently holding that in case injustice has been perpetuated, which is lit large on the face of the record, a meritorious matter should not be dismissed only on the ground of limitation. 5. This court has been consistently holding that in case injustice has been perpetuated, which is lit large on the face of the record, a meritorious matter should not be dismissed only on the ground of limitation. In this case, the petitioner, who is rightful owner of a small piece of land has managed to record two chacks of plots by increasing its measurement to the tunes of 0.2526 hectares, which has adversely effected the action of the respondent and, therefore, this Court considers it to be appropriate to condone the delay and upheld aforesaid order passed by the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation in condoning the delay. 6. We took into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration several earlier judgments laid the following principles that are to be considered at the time of disposing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The principles set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are extracted hereunder:- “1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is con-doned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. “Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 7. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid consideration, in this case, as a great injustice has been done obviously by practice of fraudulent misrepresentation and also fraud, in which, the Consolidation Authorities at the low level appears to have connived with the writ petitioner to give benefit in possession of certain lands, over which, the petitioner has no right, title and interest, this court is of the opinion, that there is no need to interfere in the order passed by the learned Revisional Court remanding the matter to the Settlement Consolidation Officer to re-hear the appeal. In that view of the matter, the writ application is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. 8. There shall be no order as to the costs. 9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted to the petitioner on proper application.