the said authority after a period of two years. The question of hearing, provided under the proviso thereto comes into play only if the revision is filed within a period of two years. Here, in the case at hand, the revision petition has been filed after 15 years and therefore, the statute did not empower the Land Revenue Commissioner to entertain a delay petition after a period of two years. Looking from that angle it is clear that the Land Revenue Commissioner did not have any power to pass any orders in the delay condonation petition, since it has been submitted after the period prescribed therefore under Rule 21(8) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. Therefore, we are of the clear opinion that the order so passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner is illegal and arbitrary, and without any powers which definitely ought to have been interfered with by the writ court. When there is no power conferred on the authority to condone the delay exceeding two years, the learned single Judge ought not have relegated the matter for consideration of the Land Revenue Commissioner in the revision petition since we are undoubtedly of the view that the authority is not vested with the powers to condone the delay beyond the period of two years it never has the power to consider the revision petition on its merit.
