IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.5643 of 2009 Kapleshwar Thakur, son of late Nawal Kishore Thakur, Resident of village Thengapur Satber, Post Tirakhardah, P.S. Sikty, district Araria .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, Purnia Division, Purnia 3. The Collector, Araria 4. The Additional Collector, Araria 5. The Deputy Director, Land Reforms, Araria 6. Smt. Ranjana Devi, W/O Sri Prakash Mohan Jha, resident of village Satber, Post Tirakhardah, P.S. Bardaha, district Araria 7. Sri Gangadhar Jha, son of late Nritya Lal Jha, resident of village Thengapur Pipra Tola Satber, Post Tirakhardah, P.S. Sikty, district Araria .. Respondents **** /2/ 06.05.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing the order, dated 12.09.2007, passed by the Commissioner, Purnia Division, Purnia, in Ceiling Revision 11 of 2007-2008. The Divisional Commissioner has dismissed the revision application on the point of limitation for the reason that even though revision was preferred after ten days’ delay, no limitation petition was filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision application was filed after ten days’ delay on account of some confusion due to amendment in Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling - 2 - Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’). Under the amended provisions in a pre-emption matter, against the appellate order passed by the Collector, revision lies before the Commissioner. Earlier revision application used to be filed before the Board of Revenue under Section 32 of the Act. Petitioner on account of some confusion could not file revision within thirty days of passing of the appellate order. 3. Considering the fact that the revision has not been decided on merit and it was dismissed without even issuing notice to the opposite party simply on the point of limitation, the impugned order, dated 12.09.2007, passed by the Commissioner, Purnia Division, Purnia, in Ceiling Revision 11 of 2007-2008 is quashed. This matter is remanded to the Commissioner, Purnia Division, Purnia. The petitioner will file a limitation explaining the delay before the Commissioner in Ceiling Revision No. 11 of 2007-2008. The delay should be condoned and revision be decided on merit. 4. With these observations and directions, this application is allowed. Cp:2/S.A. (Mridula Mishra, J.)