The bar of limitation has to operate and appeal had to be dismissed whether the petitioners had agitated the question of limitation or not.

1. Notice was issued to private respondents 5 to 8 by order dated 8.11.1985 so as to dispose of this application at the admission stage itself, if possible, and they have appeared through counsel.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at great length, and by this order the writ application is being disposed of.

3. One of the points urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the appeal filed by respondents 5 to 8 before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rohtas at Sasaram, (Respondent no. 3) was barred by limitation, having been filed beyond one month of the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days under Section 10(6) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. In paragraph 14 of the application the petitioners have asserted that no petition for condoning the delay was filed by the aforesaid respondents, who were appellants before Respondent no. 3. From the order passed by respondent No. 3 it appears that there is no discussion on the point of limitation. The revisional authority, namely, the Director of Consolidation, when this point was pressed before him, did not enter into any discussion on the ground that this point was not agitated before the appellate authority itself.

4. In our opinion, in view of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, the bar of limitation has to operate and appeal had to be dismissed whether, the petitioners (respondents before the Deputy Director of Consolidation) had agitated the question of limitation or not. On behalf of the private respondents it is, however, submitted that some time should be allowed to verify whether any limitation petition was filed or not. Since the petitioners have made categorical statement in paragraph 14 of the writ petition, the respondents will have the liberty to file an appropriate application, if the aforesaid statement of the petitioners is found to be false, with a prayer to re-examine the matter and to take suitable action against the petitioners for swearing false affidavit.

5. As a result of the view that we take, this application is allowed, and the order dated 26.8.85 passed by the Director of Consolidation (Annexure 1), and the order dated 26.8.83 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (Annexure 2) are hereby quashed.