Judgment TIWARI, M.—Above cited two revision petitions filed under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 (in short `the Act') are directed against a common impugned order dated 30.3.07 of Additional Collector Bundi by which an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was accepted. 2. The facts, in brief, leading to the revisions are that two appeals were filed under Section 75 of the Act before Additional Collector Bundi against the order dated 1.9.1995 passed in mutation No. 178 and order dated 1.5.06 passed in mutation No. 258 of village Laxmipura Tehsil Nenva in Bundi district. As the revisions are directed against a common impugned order, as such both the revisions are decided by a common judgment a copy of which may be placed in each of the file of the case separately. 3. The facts, in brief, are that Tehsildar Nenva attested mutation No. 178 dated 1.9.1995 in respect of the disputed land located in village Laxmipura of Tehsil Nenva; in another case Gram Panchayat Laxmipura attested mutation No. 258 by its order dated 1.5.06 in respect of the land under consideration located in village Laxmipura of Tehsil Nenva. Non-petitioners filed appeals under Section 75 of the Act before the court of Additional Collector against these impugned mutations along with applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Additional Collector accepted the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay by his common impugned order dated 30.3.07, aggrieved against which these two revision petitions are filed. 4. I have heard the learned counsels at length. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the mutation No. 178 was attested on 1.9.1995 and appeal was filed on 28.11.06 after lapse of around 11 years; no sufficient reason is given for condonation of this delay. Similarly in mutation No. 258 the order was passed on 1.5.06 which was challenged in appeal on 17.10.06 after a delay of around 4 months; no sufficient reason is given for justifying condonation of delay. As such impugned order dated 30.3.07 is arbitrary and illegal which should be quashed. 6. Countering the arguments of the petitioners, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners contended that no opportunity of hearing was given to the descendents of the deceased whose land was mutated without proper enquiry about the successors of the deceased. As such impugned order dated 30.3.07 is arbitrary and illegal which should be quashed. 6. Countering the arguments of the petitioners, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners contended that no opportunity of hearing was given to the descendents of the deceased whose land was mutated without proper enquiry about the successors of the deceased. Additional Collector has opted to decide the case on merits and not on technical consideration. The learned counsel cited 1998 RRD 319 to emphasize upon the point that unless the appeal is hopelessly devoid of merit it should be decided on merits only and not on the point of limitation. As such no illegality is committed in passing the impugned order. 7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, gone through the impugned order dated 30.3.07 and perused the record available on the files. 8. Additional Collector Bundi before proceeding to decide two appeals before him under Section 75 of the Act has decided the point of limitation by allowing applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay, opting to decide both the appeals on merit rather than on technical consideration of limitation. Additional Collector found prima facie that while deciding the disputed mutations opportunity of hearing was not provided to the descendents/successors of the deceased khatedar. Prima facie it appeared to him that no enquiry about the successors of the deceased khatedar was made before deciding the mutations; so following the principle of natural justice Additional Collector by his impugned order opted to decide the case on merit rather than on technical consideration of limitation and as such he condoned the delay. I do not find any infirmity in this order which is perfectly in keeping with the principle of natural justice. It has also been propounded by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in `Urban Improvement Trust vs. Poonam Chand' as reported in 1998 RRD 319 that Courts of law are required to put a glance as a condition precedent on merits of the appeal and unless appeals are found hopelessly devoid of merits, ordinarily efforts should be made to decide the appeals on merits. 9. In view of the above discussion Additional Collector has neither transgressed his jurisdiction nor committed any illegality nor any material irregularity in passing the impugned order. 9. In view of the above discussion Additional Collector has neither transgressed his jurisdiction nor committed any illegality nor any material irregularity in passing the impugned order. He has exercised his discretion in respect of condonation of delay judiciously by passing the impugned order which does not need any interference. 10. Resultantly both the revisions fail and as such they are dismissed. Pronounced.