The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, specifically regarding the necessity of deciding delay condonation application before admission of appeal.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.

1. Heard Sri Ravi Nath Tilhari, for the petitioner/review applicant.

2. The writ petition was filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 01.08.2013, rejecting the application of the petitioner for deciding delay condonation application, before hearing arguments on merit in appeal and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 04.06.2014, dismissing the revision of the petitioner against aforesaid order, in the proceeding under Section 11 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 05.09.2014, holding that the appeal, revision and application in the proceedings under the Act are being decided by consolidation authorities, adopting summary procedure, giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. In the absence of any statutory provision under the Act or Rules framed in it, requiring to decide delay condonation application, before hearing the arguments on merit in appeal, impugned orders cannot be said to be illegal. The petitioner has filed this petition for review of judgment dated 05.09.2014.

4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 11 of the Act provides 21 days limitation for filing of the appeal. Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 has been applied to the proceedings under the Act, by virtue of Section 53-B of the Act. Section 29 (2) of Limitation Act, 1963, provides that provisions of Section 3 to 24 of 1963 Act, are applicable to all proceedings, where any special or local law has provided a different limitation. Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 provides that any application, appeal etc. may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant/ applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period. Thus Section 5 requires for hearing/ decision on delay condonation application, before admission of the appeal. The provisions of Section 3, of Limitation Act, 1963, which mandatorily provides for dismissal of appeal, application etc. filed after prescribed period of limitation. Section 5 used term "may be admitted" which means before admission of the appeal, condonation of delay was necessary. These provisions escaped notice from this Court and in the judgment under review, it has been held that in the absence of any statutory provision, requiring to decide delay condonation application, before hearing the arguments on merit, in appeal, impugned orders cannot be said to be illegal. Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Bhagwat Vs. DDC and others, 1990 RD 162, Prabhu Vs. DDC and others, 2013 (118) RD 48 and Jais Lal Vs. DDC and others, 2014 (122) RD 118 , applied the principles contained in Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 and Order 41 Rule 3-A C.P.C. and held that so long as delay in filing the appeal is not condoned, Settlement Officer Consolidation has no jurisdiction to examine merit of the case and direction were issued to decide delay condonation application, before deciding the appeal on merit. In case, this Bench was not agreeing with the view of Co-ordinate Benches, then judicial discipline required to refer the issue for consideration of larger bench. Law laid down in Ramesh Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram Cement, (2008) 14 SCC 58 has no application in the matter. Thus judgment suffers from error apparent on face of record. He relied upon judgment of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Pine Chemicals Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 58 and Inder Chand Jain Vs. Moti Lal, (2009) 14 SCC 663 in which it has been held that an application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit means an act of Court shall prejudice no one.

5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the review applicant. This Court dismissed the writ petition holding that in the absence of any statutory provision under the Act or Rules framed in it, requiring to decide delay condonation a