- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. Heard Shri D. N. Tyagi learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) AN appeal was filed before the Set tlement Officer Consolidation alongwith an application to condone the delay thereof, by respondent No. 4. AN objection was taken by the petitioner that the question of con donation of delay should be decided first by speaking order and only thereafter, the case should be heard on merits. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by his order dated 16th May, 1996 held that the matter can be heard on the application for condoning the delay as well as on merit and in case the delay is not to be condoned, the order will be passed on merit. Against this order the petitioner preferred a revision before respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 dis missed the revision by order dated 15th June 1996. The petitioner has challenged these orders in the instant writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the appeal was time barred. The application for condona tion of delay was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Settlement Officer Consolidation should have decided the ap plication first and it was only after the ap plication is allowed he can proceed with the hearing of the appeal on merit. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of Smt. Munaki Devi and another v. Dy. Director of Con solidation, Azamgarh and others 1990 R. D. 243, wherein an observation was made that when the appeal is taken up for hearing, application under Section 5 of the Limita tion Act shall be decided first and in case the delay is condoned only then the appeal shall be disposed of on merit. There is, however, no bar that the authority concerned cannot hear the argu ments on the application filed for condona tion of delay as well as on the merit of the case. In case the delay is not to be condoned, the authority concerned may reject the application. If, however, the authority con cerned finds that the application for condonation is to be allowed, it can decide the case on merit.
(3.) IN view of the above, the writ peti tion is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;