WP(C) 6788/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been fil ed challenging, essentially, the order, dated 28.10.2010, passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue, in Case No. 86 RA(K)/05, whereby the appeal, which had b een preferred under Section 151 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, by th e petitioner No. 2, as the Managing Director of the petitioner No. 1, which is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, has been dism issed. Heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitione r, and Mr. B. J. Ghosh, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. A bare reading of the impugned order, dated 28.10.2010, shows that the a ppeal was preferred after long lapse of time from the date of passing of the ord er, dated 29.07.1983, which stood challenged in the appeal. The appeal was acco mpanied by an application, made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking c ondonation of delay in preferring the appeal. What is, now, required to be born e in mind is that the land, in question, stood mutated in the name of the compan y. The application for condonation of delay having not been filed by the compan y, the lack of knowledge, on the part of the Managing Director of the company, c ould not have been attributed to the company, the company could not have, theref ore, pleaded ignorance. As the appeal, in question, had been preferred by the M anaging Director, i.e., petitioner No. 2 herein, and not by the company, i.e., p etitioner No. 1 herein, there was, in law, no appeal by the petitioner No. 1, ma de to the Assam Board of Revenue. With this writ petition, therefore, made unde r Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner No. 1 cannot impugne the order, dated 28.10.2010. The remedy, if any, of the petitioner No. 1, lies in either preferring an appeal against the order, dated 29.07.1983, aforemention ed or in taking recourse to such other provisions of law as may be permissible. In view of the above, this writ petition is not admitted and the same sh all accordingly stand dismissed with liberty granted to the petitioners to take recourse to appropriate provisions of law. No order as to costs.