The revisional authority cannot decide a revision challenging the order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation on merits without considering the legality of the order and without giving an opportunity of hearing.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Sankatha Rai learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. N. Singh for the respondents.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the dispute are as under.

( 3 ) DURING the chak allotment proceedings respondent No. 4, Amirjahan Bibi filed an objection under Section 20 of the Act against the proposed allotment which was rejected by the consolidation officer vide order dated 21. 4. 1975. After a lapse of about 5 years she filed time barred appeal along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 12. 3. 1982, refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as time barred. Feeling aggrieved she filed a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed on merits vide order dated 21. 7. 1982. The respondent No. 5, Naushad filed an application to recall the said order. One jagdish, respondent No. 8, who is said to be not a party in the revision, also filed similar application. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18. 8. 1982, not only recalled the order dated 21. 7. 1982, but by the same order decided the revision on merits. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed instant writ petition for quashing the order dated 18. 8. 1982.

( 4 ) IT has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that arguments were heard only on restoration matter and not on merits and Deputy Director of Consolidation wrongly and illegally decided the revision on merits without giving any opportunity of hearing. It has further been contended that scope of revision filed by the respondent No. 4 was confined to the question whether delay in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned and the jurisdiction of the Deputy director of Consolidation was confined only to the consideration of the validity and legality of the order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation, for if he would have been satisfied about the sufficiency of the cause shown for condoning the delay the case ought to have been remanded back to the appellate authority for decision of appeal on merits. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court, in the case of Tirath v. Joint Director of Consolidation, 1985 RD 276.

( 5 ) IN reply, it has been urged on behalf of the respondent that by the impugned order the earlier order dated 21. 7. 1982, passed on the revision of the respondent No. 4 was recalled and the same has not been challenged by her and the petitioner cannot be permitted to hold brief of respondent no. 4 and challenge the same. It has further been urged that by the impugned order no injustice has been caused to the petitioner and no writ should be issued to quash an order by which substantial justice has been done between the parties.

( 6 ) I have considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the writ petition.

( 7 ) THE appeal filed by the respondent No. 4 was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of consolidation by a cryptic one line order that it is not appropriate to allow the benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act, Neither there is any discussion about the cause shown for delay nor any reason has been recorded for refusing the benefit. The Deputy Director of Consolidation without considering the question whether Settlement Officer of Consolidation rightly refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal decided the revision on merits.

( 8 ) THE question which arises for consideration is regarding the jurisdiction of the revisional authority to decide a revision, challenging the order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation, on merits.

( 9 ) DISAGREEING with the view taken in the case of Basalat and Ors. v. Deputy Director of consolidation, 1983 ALJ 30 (NOC) ; Ram Ajor v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1980 ALJ 1160 and Hari Lal v.