NAZIRAHMED Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed the above writ petition challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner dated 26.02.2015 confirming the order dated 19.3.2012 passed by the Technical Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and 2nd respondent-Ex-Officio Deputy Director of Land Records, Belagavi, as per Annexures D and C, alleging that while allowing the appeal filed by the present respondent-5, the 2nd respondent- Technical Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner & Ex-Officio Deputy Director of Land Records, Belagavi, has not passed any orders on the application filed by 5th respondent seeking for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. Similarly, the order passed by the 2nd respondent has been confirmed by the 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner by rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved by the both the orders, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.

(3.) Sri.A.D.Shilledar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 are illegal and perverse and without authority of law. The impugned orders does not disclose whether the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was considered and disposed of before considering the appeal on merits. In the absence of passing any orders on the application filed by 5th respondent for condonation of delay, the impugned order passed by 2nd respondent and confirmed by the first respondent cannot be sustained in law. He submits that without condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the 2nd respondent does not get jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits. Hence, he prays to quash the impugned orders by allowing the petition as prayed for.