BARIN GHOSH & ANWAR AHMAD, JJ 1. All these appeals are against a common judgment and order and accordingly the same are considered together and decided by this common judgment. 2. The present Letters Patent Appeals are against the order dated 10th July, 1998 passed in FA Nos. 414/95, 422/95, 423/95, 424/95, 426/95, 427/95 & 428/95 whereby and under the applications filed to condone the delay in filing the said appeals were dismissed principally on the ground that on similar facts and circumstances another First Appeal registered as FA No. 248/95 was filed, wherein also an application for condonation of delay was filed, which was rejected by an order dated 4th August, 1997. The learned Judge though discussed the law applicable to the subject, but did not consider the facts to which such law could be applied. The learned Judge did not record that the application contained any unexplained delay. The principal ground, therefore, to refuse discretion to condone the delay was the order dated 4th August, 1997 passed in F.A. No. 248/ 95. 3. We have enquired from the learned counsel for the appellant and have been able to gather that though an appeal was preferred against the order dated 4th August, 1997 passed in FA No. 248/95, but the said appeal too was preferred after expiry of the time prefer such appeal and the application for condonation filed to condone the delay in preferring that appeal was rejected. 4. In such view of the matter there is hardly any scope of interference, but it appears that in respect of a land acquisition matter pursuant to a notification, many appeals were preferred by the Appellant-State simultaneously. One of them registered as F.A. No. 438/95 was also filed after expiry of time to prefer the appeal and accordingly, an application for condonation in preferring the said appeal was filed, which was allowed by an order dated 30th April, 1997. Unfortunately this order dated 30th April, 1997 was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge when the learned Single Judge passed the order under appeal. If the said order had been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, we think that the learned Judge may have had taken a different view. 5. Unfortunately this order dated 30th April, 1997 was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge when the learned Single Judge passed the order under appeal. If the said order had been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, we think that the learned Judge may have had taken a different view. 5. Having regard to the fact that first of such condonation applications was allowed on 30th April, 1997, the same ought to have been brought to the notice of the learned Judge and in not bringing the same to the notice of the learned Judge, the Appellant-State made a great blunder. We may hasten to add that by not bringing the same to the notice of the learned Judge, who dealt with F.A. No. 438/95, the Appellant-State made an irreparable error. However, in so far as these appeals are concerned, having noted the order passed on in 30th April, 1997 in F.A. No. 438/95 it would be appropriate on our part to allow the appeals and thereby to condone the delay in preferring the aforementioned appeals. 6. We, accordingly, pass such order. All these letters patent appeals stand disposed of. Let the First Appeals be decided at an early date.