The court emphasized the importance of considering the circumstances and condoning delay in filing appeals when the petitioner's lack of knowledge is supported by the facts.

Govind Mathur, J.-By an order dated 10.07.1971 agricultural land measuring 23.15 bighas was allotted to the petitioner by considering him as a landless person for temporary cultivation in chak 6P. The allotment made in favour of the petitioner for temporary cultivation was renewed upto 312.1972, however, the same was not extended as the land allotted to the petitioner was kept reserved for allotment to the Pong Dam Oustees.

2. The petitioner in view of the fact that he was already having lease for temporary cultivation again applied for allotment of land to the competent authority.

3. Accordingly under an order dated 01.07.1973 land was allotted to him for temporary cultivation in square No. 203/39 chak 5JM. Under an order dated 16.07.1974 the same land was allotted to the petitioner for permanent cultivation.

4. By a notice dated 19.01.1975 issued under Section 14 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the allotment of land made in his favour under the order dated 16.07.1974 be not cancelled being in breach of the terms of allotment.

5. The petitioner on 04.02.1975 submitted a detailed explanation to satisfy the competent authority that no breach of conditions was made by him while getting allotment of land. The authorised officer i.e., the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Raisinghnagar on 04.02.1975 itself cancelled the allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner, however, according to the petitioner no information with regard to order dated 04.02.1975 was ever given to him. It is also stated that on 04.02.1975 the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Raisinghnagar assured the petitioner to provide information of the decision as and when taken with regard to notice dated 19.01.1975. The petitioner after 04.02.1975 while retaining possession of the land in question with him also satisfied the demand made by the Tehsildar by depositing the remaining amount payable for allotment of the land in dispute. The petitioner at the first instance came to know about the order dated 04.02.1975 on 09.05.1990 when the Assistant Collector, Anupgarh made a note in allotment file of the petitioner as under:-

6. According to the petitioner in pursuant to the note referred above dated 09.05.1990 the patwari of the patwar circle concerned initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner, therefore, he immediately obtained a copy of the order dated 04.02.1975 and then preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority challenging it. The petitioner also submitted an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application preferred by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed by order dated 09.07.1990 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, therefore, the appeal too stood rejected.

7. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer that too came to be rejected by Judgment dated 02.02.1996. The Board of Revenue as well as the Revenue Appellate Authority did not find the reason given by the petitioner for causing delay in filing the appeal as sufficient and trustworthy.

8. By the instant petition for writ a challenge is given by the petitioner to the Judgment dated 02.02.1996 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and the Judgment dated 09.07.1990 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar.

9. While giving challenge to the Judgment s impugned it is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below erred while not considering the reason given by the petitioner for causing delay in filing appeal as sufficient and trustworthy. The petitioner in application to Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by an affidavit stated that the order dated 04.02.1975 was not dictated by the authorised officer i.e., the Deputy Collector (Revenue), R