JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated October 29, 1976 is Misc. Application No. 162 of 1976 arising out of the order dated March 31, 1976 in case No. 31 of 1976 under Section 161 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act by S.D.O. Sadar, Muzaffarnagar. 2. The facts of this case briefly stated are that the revisionist Lal Chandra and others submitted an application to the S.D.O. under Section 161 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for exchange of the land with that of the Gaon Sabha and this application was allowed on march 3, 1976. Subsequently the Tahsildar reported to the S.D.O. that plot No. 623 of the Gaon Sabha which had been give in exchange to the revisionist had already been allotted to one Sewa Ram by the resolution of the L.M.C. dated December 3, 1975 and approved by the S.D.O. on December 31, 1975. On this report the learned S.D.O. suo-motu withdrew his earlier order of exchange dated march 8, 1976 and rejected the exchange vide his order dated March 31, 1976. The revisionist filed application before the S.D.O. on June 4, 1976 for withdrawing his order dated March 31, 1976 because it was ex-parte and no notice had been given to the revisionist. They died an appeal also before the Additional Commissioner against the order dated March 31, 1976 passed by the S.D.O. on June 25, 1976 alongwith an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act coupled with an affidavit stating that they had no knowledge of the order dated March 31, 1976 because no notice had been given to them and that they came to know about this order only on June 4, 1976 hence the delay was condoned. The learned Additional Commissioner rejected this application on the ground that the appellant had failed to explain each and every days delay after June 4, 1976. This revision has been filed against the same record. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that obviously the order dated March 31, 1976 was passed in the absence of the revisionist and they had not been served with any notice. This revision has been filed against the same record. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that obviously the order dated March 31, 1976 was passed in the absence of the revisionist and they had not been served with any notice. Consequently the revisionist had no knowledge about this order and they came to know about it for the first time on June 4, 1976. Consequently the period of limitation of 30 days would be counted from June 4, 1976 and not form the date of order. It was, therefore, argued that even though an application under Section 5 of the Limitation act was moved by the appellant before the Addl. Commissioner it was not needed to all and the delay in the fling of the appeal should have been automatically condoned. The learned counsel has placed reliance on a ruling in Deoli v. Bal Krishan, 1956 R.D. 470. 5. I understand that there is force in the argument of the learned counsel. The limitation has to be reckoned from the date of the knowledge and not from the date of order because no notice had been served upon the revisionist before the order dated March 31, 1976 was passed. In view of such preposition the appeal filed before the learned Additional Commissioner was within limitation and court not be dismissed. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act deserved to have been allowed and was wrongly rejected. 6. In such circumstances this revision is allowed and the order of the Additional Commissioner dated October 29, 1976 is set aside and the appeal is ordered to be admitted before him for hearing. Let the records be sent back to the Additional Commissioner to dispose of appeal according to law.