PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.K. Tyagi learned Counsel for the peti­tioners and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents.
(2.) BY means of the present petition, the validity and legality of the order dated 18.10. 2001 passed by the Board of Reve­nue, U.P. at Allahabad in second appeal Nos. 38 and 39 of 1997-98 whereby it has allowed the appeals and the delay in their filing has been condoned. The Board of Revenue has remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment. The facts of the case so far as they are relevant for the purposes of present writ petition, may be noticed in brief. It appears that suit Nos. 31 and 32 of 1963-64 were instituted by the petition­ers in respect of the plot in dispute under section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The said suits were decreed by the judg­ment and decree dated 20th of November, 1963 by the Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Bu-landshahar. The said decrees were con­firmed in revenue appeal Nos. 36 and 37 of 1963 - 1964 by the order dated 8th of July, 1964 by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. The orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut were challenged for the first time by filing Second Appeal Nos. 38 and 39 of 1997-98. These second appeals were filed after about 36 years. These appeals were accompanied with an applications for condonation of delay in their filing. The Board of Revenue by the impugned judgment and order has con­doned the delay and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh considera­tion.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the peti­tioners submits that there was an enormous delay in filing of the appeals before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue without applying its mind to the facts of the case has mechanically condoned the delay.;