A formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not necessary for condonation of delay. The court can condone the delay based on the facts stated in the memorandum of appeal, provided that sufficient cause is shown.

Nagendra Rai, J.- Though this application has been listed under the heading for orders but with consent of the parties, this application is being disposed of at this stage itself.

2. The petitioner has challenged the resolution dated 22.12.98 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, respondent no.2 in Revision Case No.16 of 1998 by which he has upheld the order of the Collector dated 25.5.98 passed in Ceiling Appeal No. 120 of 1997 rejecting the objection of the petitioner regarding the admission of the appeal by him by order dated 6.10.98 after condoning the delay. Copy of the resolution of the Board dated 22.12.98, copies of the orders of the Collector dated 25.5.98 and 6.10.98 have been annexed as Annexures-5, 4 and 2 respectively.

3. It appears that the Land Ceiling Case No. 1/90-91 was initiated against Bimla Devi, the daughter of the petitioner by the D.C.L.R., Bhabhua. She was found to be in possession of 550.60 acres of different class of land and in the draft statement under section 10(3) of the Act 373.75 acres of land was shown as surplus land.

4. The petitioner after having come to know the said proceeding, filed objection. The other person also filed objection claiming the lands, subject matter of the ceiling proceeding. The D.C.L.R. by order dated 17.2.97 dropped the proceeding holding that neither the respondent no.6 nor the petitioner who was the objector has surplus land and sent the record to the Collector for approval. A copy of the said order is Annexure-1 to the writ application. It appears that the file remained with the Additional Collector and after his retirement it came to the notice of the other authorities and thereafter steps were taken. An appeal was filed on 6.10.97 and the Collector condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the same. The petitioner appeared before the appellate court and filed a petition praying therein that the appeal was barred by limitation and the delay has been condoned without hearing the aggrieved person. The Collector came to the conclusion that the delay has been satisfactorily explained by the appellant State and rejected the objection of the petitioner by order dated 25.5.98 which was challenged by the petitioner before the Member, Board of Revenue in the aforesaid revision case and the revision application has been dismissed. Hence the present writ application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two points. Firstly, he submitted that in absence of any formal application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay, the order condoning the delay is not maintainable. Secondly, he submitted that the Additional Member, Board of Revenue was not justified in issuing direction to the appellate authority with regard to the steps to be taken in the appeal.

6. Counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand, submitted that there is no requirement in law that separate application under the relevant provision should be filed. Only requirement is that delay in filing the appeal should be satisfactorily explained and in this case in the memorandum of appeal itself the circumstances for not filing the appeal were given and after being satisfied with that the delay was condoned by the Collector. He further submitted that the revisional authority has not issued any direction and on the other hand it has only made certain observation with regard to the options open to the appellate court while deciding the appeal pending before him. Thus, according to him, no specific direction has been issued to the Collector to deal with the matter in a particular manner.

7. Admittedly the appeal against the order dated 19.2.97 was filed beyond the period of limitation. In the memorandum of appeal it was specially stated that the D.C.L.R. sent the record to the Collector which was kept by the Additional Collector till his retirement and when the new incumbent joined, then the steps were taken to file an appeal. The Collector being satisfied a