Referring to the observations made in the appeal and the disclosure of the dates estab
lishing the delay in filing the appeal, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
re was hardly a delay of less than one month and it appears, the petitioners had indicated suf
ficient grounds explaining the delay in filing the appeal and the appellate authority having f
ailed in appreciating the same passed the illegal impugned order. Sri Mahana, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner thus prayed for interfering in the impugned order vide Annexure-4
by setting aside the same.
Learned State Counsel on the other hand, referring to the observations made in the imp
ugned order submitted that admittedly, there was delay in filing the appeal and therefore, the
re is no illegality committed by the appellate authority in dismissing the appeal. Taking into
consideration the submission made herein and looking to the information available through the
limitation petition as well as in the impugned order, this Court finds, by filing the appeal,
the petitioners have assailed the order passed in the regulation-II proceeding dated 14.10.19
92 and the appeal was filed on 16.12.1992. Even though there is one month delay in filing the
appeal but for the reasons assigned for delay, it appears, the petitioners have bona fide reas
ons for delay in filing the appeal and since the appeal involves a property right, this Court
observes, the appellate authority should have condoned the delay and heard the matter on merit
