JUDGMENT :

In all these writ petitions, they have quite elaborative factual background, but the same is not required to be considered, at this stage, where the issue is only confined to as to whether, the revisional court, at the stage of considering the delay condonation application filed in support of the revision under section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, could have rejected the delay condonation application, without even considering the grounds, which were taken in the delay condonation application and that too by the cursory observations and by being over dominated, bythe plea taken by the other side that the delayed revision has been preferred, after a delay of over six years.

2. The question would be, as to whether there was a reasonable delay of six years or not, which could have been only decided, subject to the condition that the revisional court has considered the logic pleaded for condonation of the delay as sought by the State in filing the revision. In the proceedings, which were arising out of section 54 of the Land Revenue Act of 1901, the matter travelled before the appellate court, and the appellate court decided the matter by the judgment dated 13.09.2001, against