RAMGOPALBAHETI Vs. GIRIDHARILALSONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.

(3.) The short question involved in this appeal is whether the High court in the impugned judgment was justified in taking a view that because the proviso to sub-rule (ii) of Rule 26 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1965 did not mention the words "prescribed authority", the application forcondonation of delay moved by the appellant was not maintainable before that authority. The appeal was preferred against an order passed under Section 51-A (4 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 before the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Hooghly and an application for condonation of delay was also filed before the said authority and the delay was condoned. However, the contesting respondent in CO No. 2444 of 1995 contended before the High court that the application for condonation of delay was to be considered only by the Additional District Magistrate and not by the prescribed authority before whom the said appeal could be filed. For coming to that conclusion, learned Judge relied upon Rule 26 (ii) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965 which reads as under: