ORDER :-The land in Sy.No.143 of Doolapally Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was held as inam by one, Sri B. Ranga Reddy. It was in the enjoyment of one Mr. Gyara Venkaiah. It is stated that in the family partition it was allotted to Gyara Laxmaiah, the son of Venkaiah. Laxmaiah, in turn, sold two acres of land in favour of Sri Poshetty Gandaiah, and the petitioner purchased two acres from Gandaiah in the year 1985. On an application made by the petitioner, under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, the 2nd respondent, issued Occupancy Right Certificate (for short the 'ORC') in favour of the petitioner, through order dated 7.5.1997. 2. The wife of late Gyara Laxmaiah, the 4th respondent, and their daughters, respondents 5 to 8 and two brothers of Gyara Laxmaiah, respondents 9 and 10, filed an appeal under Section 24 of the Act before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the 1st respondent, against the order dated 7.5.1997 passed by the 2nd respondent. Since the appeal was presented after expiry of more than a decade, they filed a delay application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, with a prayer to condone the delay. On receiving the notices in the appeal, the petitioner raised several objections. Through order dated 20.12.2008, the 1st respondent allowed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act do not apply to the proceedings before the 1st respondent, and still an appeal preferred after 11 years was entertained. He contends that even assuming that the 1st respondent is conferred with the power to condone the delay, he did not pass any order to the effect that the delay is condoned, much less any reasons were assigned. Learned Counsel further contends that through a catena of decisions, this Court held that the transferee from a person holding an inam land, is entitled to apply for ORC, and the view taken by the 1st respondent in allowing the appeal is erroneous. 4. On behalf of the respondents 4 to 10, a caveat is filed. Their Counsel, Sri Mohd. Learned Counsel further contends that through a catena of decisions, this Court held that the transferee from a person holding an inam land, is entitled to apply for ORC, and the view taken by the 1st respondent in allowing the appeal is erroneous. 4. On behalf of the respondents 4 to 10, a caveat is filed. Their Counsel, Sri Mohd. Mumtaz Pasha, submits that his clients could not present the appeal in time, since they were not aware of the order passed by the 2nd respondent, in favour of the petitioner. He contends that the 1st respondent made a specific reference to the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the appeal was allowed after taking into account, the various objections raised by the petitioner. He submits that the order passed by the 1st respondent does not warrant interference. 5. Learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 submits that the 1st respondent had passed the impugned order in accordance with law, and in exercise of powers under Section 24 of the Act. 6. The petitioner challenges the order dated 20.12.2008, passed by the 1st respondent, mainly on two grounds: the first is that the appeal filed by the respondents 4 to 10 ought not to have been entertained by the 1st respondent, since it is presented II years after the 2nd respondent passed an order, granting ORC. The second is that the view taken by the 1st respondent, that a transferee of an inam land cannot apply for ORC; cannot be sustained in law. 7. The petitioner purchased the land in question from Mr. Gandaiah, and the latter in turn purchased from Laxmaiah. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of ORC, since what was purchased is an inam land. The 2nd respondent passed an order dated 7.5.1997, granting the ORC in favour of the petitioner. Section 24 of the Act provides for an appeal by a party, aggrieved by, grant or denial of ORC. 60 days is stipulated as the period of limitation. The order dated 3.5.1997 discloses that a general notification calling for objections from individuals was issued through notice in Form-II. It appears that no objections were received. 8. The respondents 4 to 10 themselves filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, with a prayer to condone delay in preferring the appeal. The 1st respondent took note of the same. It appears that no objections were received. 8. The respondents 4 to 10 themselves filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, with a prayer to condone delay in preferring the appeal. The 1st respondent took note of the same. The second paragraph of the order dated 20.12.2008 reads as under: "The appellant has filed petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with affidavit and prayed to condone the delay in preferring the present appeal, against the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in file No.J/4353/1994 dated 7.5.1997." 9. Whenever an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed, the concerned Authority, or the Court is under obligation to examine it and pass an order, either condoning the delay or rejecting it. The view expressed by the opposite party has to be taken into account, and a reasoned order is to be passed. If an objection is raised, as to the very applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, even that has to be dealt with. 10. In the instant case, the 1st respondent did not advert to, either the grounds urged for condonation of delay, or those, urged by the petitioner, against the same. The record does not disclose that there existed any separate order, condoning the delay. Therefore, there is a serious infirmity in the order passed by the 1st respondent. With the expiry of limitation, valuable rights accrue to the persons, in whose favour an order is passed by a Court or Authority. The delay in presenting the appeal or revision, as the case may be, can be condoned only after taking into account the objection raised by the aggrieved party, and by assigning reasons. The question as to whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply to the matters of this nature, also arises for consideration. Since respondents did not advert to the same, it is not felt necessary to deal with it, at this stage. 11. The impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the 1st respondent did not deal with the condonation of delay. This Court does not feel the necessity to deal with the second question, which touches the merits. The matter needs to be examined by the 1st respondent afresh, particularly on the question of limitation. 12. 11. The impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the 1st respondent did not deal with the condonation of delay. This Court does not feel the necessity to deal with the second question, which touches the merits. The matter needs to be examined by the 1st respondent afresh, particularly on the question of limitation. 12. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 20.12.2008 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Ist respondent for fresh consideration and disposal, with a specific direction that the question of limitation in presenting the appeal shall be dealt with, specifically, with reference to the objections raised by the petitioner herein. The appeal shall be disposed of within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. There shall be no order as to costs.