IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6413 of 2002 SHAMBHU LAL SAH, SON OF HARI NARAYAN SAH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BARA BAZAR, KATIHAR, P.S. & DISTRICT KATIHAR --------PETITIONER VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, AZAM NAGAR, DISTRICT KATIHAR. 3.D.C.L.R., BARSOI, P.S. BARSOI, DISTRICT KATIHAR. 4.S.D.O., BARSOI, DISTRICT KATIHAR. 5.MANGAN PRASAD MANDAL SON OF LATE NENAI MANDAL 6.BAIJNATH MANDAL SON OF LATE NENAI MANDAL. BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PEERGANJ, P.O. ARIHANA ANCHAL, P.S. AZAM NAGAR, DISTRICT KATIHAR. --------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner : Messrs Rabindra Kumar Choudhary & Suresh Prasad Baranwal, Advocates For the S t a t e : G.P.II For Respondents no. 5 & 6 : Mr A.C. Nirankar, Advocate ------------------ 4. 24.2.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.2.2002 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barsoi, Katihar (respondent no.4) in Revenue Appeal No.3/1999-2000, as contained in Annexure 6, whereby the appeal of the petitioner arising out of a proceeding under section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act was dismissed on the ground of limitation. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondent no.4, while dismissing the appeal, did not consider the application filed by the petitioner explaining the circumstances in which he could not prefer the appeal within the period of limitation. 2 On account of dismissal of the said appeal on the ground of limitation, the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced as respondent no.4 failed to consider the relevant aspects of the matter that the Anchal Adhikari, Azam Nagar, Katihar (respondent no.2) had passed the order without making any local inquiry and had merely passed the order on the basis of the report submitted by the Halka Karamchari. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.5 and 6 submits that the order of respondent no.4 in dismissing the appeal on the question of limitation has been passed on due application of mind. Learned counsel further submits that the application filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay was vague and that too for condoning the inordinate delay of about three and half years. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner may be given liberty to place his case and the relevant documents before the appellate authority. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, in my opinion, the respondent no.4, while dismissing the appeal on the question of limitation, should have considered the question of limitation on the grounds stated in the limitation petition. The respondent no.4 as such should consider afresh with opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate the allegations made in the limitation application. In case the respondent no.4 is satisfied on the materials placed before him in support of the grounds taken in the limitation application, he shall pass order in accordance with law on the question 3 of limitation for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In this view of the matter, the order dated 8.2.2002 passed in Revenue Appeal no.3/1999-2000, as contained in Annexure 6, is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to respondent no.4 for passing a fresh order, as indicated above. Till the disposal of the limitation petition filed by the petitioner before respondent no.4, status quo with respect to the possession of the land in question shall be maintained. The writ application is disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)