JUDGEMENT A.K.Tripathi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Bereft of other details, the concise and precise submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the impugned order dated 25.4.1990 contained in Annexure-6 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, is an error of law. The only reason why the Revision Application has been dismissed was because there was a delay in filing the Revision Application and the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, expressed his opinion that he did not have power of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners however, relies on a Division Bench decision rendered in the case of Kula Nand Jha vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1998(2) PLJR 693, where it has been held that the authority would be in error in declining the power to condone the delay in filing an appeal or revision under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. In view of the ratio in the case of Kula Nand Jha, writ application is allowed, Annexure-6 is quashed. 5. The matter is remanded back to the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, to consider the merits of the condonation application as well as the case afresh.