JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member- This is a revision against the judgement of Additional Commissioner dated 31.3.1977. There was a proceeding u/s 122-B/Rule 115-C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules. 2. In this case the opposite party filed the objection and date was fixed for 3.6.1976, but on that date he did not appear and the order was passed against him. 3. Then he filed a restoration application on 18.9.1976. That restoration application was dismissed by the trial court on 18.9.1976 and in it, it was held that the order dated 3.6.1976 was in accordance with rule and the land had already been allotted, hence the application was rejected. Against this order revision was filed and Additional Commissioner by his judgement dated 31.3.1977 dismissed the revision on the ground that the affidavit mentioning the fact about the illness of the revisionist on 3.6.1976 and due to illegal advice he did not appear and he did not accept both the contentions, hence the revision was dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 5. From the above facts it is clear that the restoration application dated 17.9.1976 (filed on 18.9.1976) has not been decided on merits. The Assistant Collector 1st Class has given different reasons for rejecting the application. In the same way the Additional Commissioner has also mentioned about the illness and legal advice which are not in the affidavit filed by the applicant. 6. In the restoration application the court should look into the matter whether the application was within time or not, if not, the delay can be condoned on the reasonable grounds and then the application should be decided on merits, but no such order has been passed by any court and the restoration application has been decided on frivolous consideration. If the finding is based on legally irrelevant considerations, it is jurisdictional error vide 1969-2 A.C. page 147. Anisainic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commissioner, (See de Smith's Judicial Review of Administrative Action 4th Edition of 1980 page 112). 7. I, therefore, set aside the judgement of Additional Commissioner dated 31.3.1977 and judgement of trial court dated 18.9.1976 and remand the case to the trial court to decide the restoration application on merits and on the basis of the observations made above.