JUDGMENT M.F. Saldanha, J.—We have heard the appellant's learned Advocate and the learned Government Advocate for Respondents 1 to 3. Respondent No. 4 has been served and is unrepresented. 2. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant primarily on the ground of gross delay. In this case, the land was granted in the year 1953-54 vide order dated 27.1.1954 and the alienation was on 3.11.1971. The contention raised is that the bar on alienation prohibited the sale of the land for a period of 10 years and that the aforesaid dates alone would indicate that when the complaint was lodged by the Respondent No. 4 with the authorities that there was really no valid cause of action. What unfortunately happened was that when the Assistant Commissioner issued notice to the appellant's grand mother, that she did not Respondent as a result of which an exparte order which is Ex.B dated 18.1.1982 came to be passed. This order was sought to be challenged whereupon the direction was that an appeal should be filed. The appeal was filed after a very long delay of about 17 years and consequently, the same was dismissed on the ground of limitation. This order was upheld by the learned Single Judge. 3. What is pointed out before us is that the appellant's grand mother undoubtedly did default but that she was an illiterate person and that she died shortly thereafter and that it was only much later on, that her grand son took up the whole issue when the possession was sought to be disturbed. It is true that there is very gross delay but, there are exceptional situations in which a Court is required to examine the consequences of the same. On a perusal of the original order itself it appears to us prima facie that the authority was wrong in setting aside the same merely because the Respondent did not appear. This being the position, irrespective of the defaults that have taken place in our considered view it is manifestly unjust to the appellant if that order were to be given effect to. Consequently, we quash and set-aside the order in question and all subsequent orders passed thereafter. 4. This being the position, irrespective of the defaults that have taken place in our considered view it is manifestly unjust to the appellant if that order were to be given effect to. Consequently, we quash and set-aside the order in question and all subsequent orders passed thereafter. 4. It is necessary however for us to add a rider in so far as since the records do not indicate the exact terms and conditions of the grant and furthermore there is some ambiguity as to whether the land was granted free of cost or for a reduced upset price or for the upset price, which may make some difference we leave open the liberty to the authorities if the facts of the case so justify to issue a fresh notice to the appellant and to proceed thereafter. 5. With these directions, the appeal which succeeds to stand disposed of. No order as to costs.