JUDGMENT In this petition, petitioner is challenging the order passed by SDO and the appellate order confirming the order of the SDO passed by Collector, Mandsaur. Brief facts, material for deciding the said petition, are mentioned hereinbelow : Original respondent No. 4 Ranchod Das filed an application before respondent No.2 SDO under S. 5 of toe M.P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharkon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (for short the Adhiniyam). On such an application being filed, notice was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner filed his reply challenging the relief claimed by respondent No. 4. Parties led evidence. SDO passed an order on application of the evidence available on record and rejected the application filed by respondent No. 4. Feeling aggrieved by this order, respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal before the Collector Mandsaur. Collector Mandsaur passed an order in favour of respondent No. 4 and remanded it to SDO for fresh enquiry on certain issues. On the matter being remanded, SDO heard the matter once again. SDO then allowed the application filed by respondent No. 4. Feeling aggrieved by this order petitioner then preferred an appeal under the provisions of the Adhiniyam before the Collector, Mandsaur. Collector Mandsaur has confirmed the finding recorded by the SDO and rejected petitioner's appeal. Petitioner has now approached this Court challenging the aforesaid two orders. During the pendency of the present petition respondent No. 4 expired. Earlier his wife alongwith the present respondent No. 4 were brought on record. In the meanwhile wife of original respondent No. 4 Ranchod Das also expired. Thus, her name was deleted vide order of the Court. Shri Joshi appearing for petitioner has submitted that the application filed by deceased respondent was not maintainable as the same had not been filed within the period prescribed under S. 4 of the Adhiniyam. His contention is that this ground was specifically raised by the petitioner in his written statement filed before respondent No. 2. Yet without considering the said question the application filed by deceased respondent No. 4 was entertained. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of this Court passed in M.P. No. 119 of 1983 (Ramlal v. Rathunath and others) decided on 20.2.1985. Yet without considering the said question the application filed by deceased respondent No. 4 was entertained. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of this Court passed in M.P. No. 119 of 1983 (Ramlal v. Rathunath and others) decided on 20.2.1985. Counsel appearing for respondents submitted that even though this ground was raised by the petitioner, but, it appears, from the impugned orders, especially in absence of any issue being framed by the SDO that this question was not decided. Thus, it is clear that the question of limitation which was raised by the petitioner has not at all been considered either by the SDO or by the Collector in appeal. The said question goes to the root of the matter. It is, therefore, desirable that findings be recorded on the said question. In the light of the aforesaid submission I deem it fit to remit it to Collector Mandsaur for deciding whether the application filed by deceased respondent No. 4 was within the period of limitation as prescribed under S. 4 of the Adhiniyam. Since the matter is old, it is expected that Collector, Mandsaur shall make an endeavour to dispose of the matter in the light of the directions mentioned above, within a period off our months from the date the parties appear before him. Parties agree that they shall appear before the Collector on 18.12.1998. With these observations this petition stands allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. Security deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner after due verification.