- (1.) It is specifically stated in page 7 of the writ petition as also it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 07th of July, 2007 the matter was listed before Jodhpur Camp of the Bench of Board of Revenue. On that day it was specifically stated by the petitioner in the writ petition which reads as under : "On 7.7.07 Shri M.C.Purohit , Advocate for the Respondent had appeared before the bench at Jodhpur and had argued the case and the order was reserved . But in the order- sheet it has been mentioned that none present for the Respondent No.1. The arguments were heard and the orders were reserved. The counsel for the Respondent No.1 was legitimately expecting that as the order has been reserved he will be intimated about the order when it will be passed. But no intimation was given to him or to Respondent No.1 and it was wrongly mentioned that the Respondent No.1 is absent. The order has been passed by Shri Kuldeep Sharma, Member of Revenue Board on 27.07.07. "
(2.) In this view of the matter, I deem it just and proper to grant liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition and apprise the Member of Board of Revenue with regard to the above fact. Upon filing the said review petition , it is expected from the Revenue Board that his application for review will be decided in accordance with law.
(3.) It is also made clear that for condonation of delay the petitioner may file an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and it is also expected from the Member , Board of Revenue that he will condone the delay for filing the review petition within time.;