Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 29.11.1996 (Annex.4) passed by the Single Bench of the Hon'ble in Reference case No. 454/95/LR/Jalore and judgment dated 4.10.1999 (Annex.5) passed upon special appeal/LR/42/99/Jalore by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue, but upon perusal of the order dated 4.10.1999 passed by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue it is revealed that the special appeal filed under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 was dismissed solely on the ground of limitation.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not having knowledge about reference proceedings because he got information only on 14.7.1999 from Halka Patwari. After getting information obtained certified copy of the order dated 29.11.1996 preferred special appeal before the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and along with special appeal filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. The Division Bench of the Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal while accepting the preliminary objection raised by the Government Advocate with regard to limitation vide order dated 4.10.1999.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although for filing special appeal 30 days period is provided but the petitioner is purchaser of the land in question from Joga S/o Girdhari under registered sale deed executed on 29.5.1995 where he has constructed his house. It is argued that for disputed land proceedings under Section 91 of the Act were initiated against the applicant but dropped. In the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with special appeal reasons for delay were explained and in support of the reasons, affidavit was also filed to prove the fact that applicant was not having knowledge about the proceedings of reference, for the first time, Patwari Halk informed the petitioner about the judgment dated 19.11.1996 on 14.7.1999 and, thereafter, he filed special appeal within time.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that delay in filing special appeal against the order dated 29.11.1996 passed by the member of the Board of Revenue in reference made under Section 82 of the Act was properly explained but the learned Division Bench of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer dismissed the special appeal solely on the ground of delay in spite of the fact that the delay was explained, therefore, it is prayed that the judgment impugned dated 4.10.1999 may kindly be quashed. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court towards the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nath v. Gobardhan Sao reported in AIR 2002 (SC) 1201 in which it is held that for condonation of delay liberal construction should be taken so as to advance substantial justice to the litigant, therefore, the judgment dated 4.10.1999 may kindly be quashed and matter may be remitted to the Board of Revenue to decide the special appeal/LR/42/99/Jalore on merit.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that the special appeal was filed after inordinate delay without proper explanation of period, therefore, no interference is called for in the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue dated 4.10.1999 in special appeal.

7. After considering the entire facts of the case, I have perused the order passed by the single judge of the Board of Revenue in reference case no.454/95/LR/Jalore in which notice was given to one Joga S/o Girdhari from whom the petitioner purchased the land vide registered sale deed dated 29.5.1995 but no notice was given to the petitioner. Meaning thereby on the date of judgment passed by the Board of Revenue, Joga Ram was not having any title over the land in questi