Prakash Krishna, J.: - Heard Sri S.K. Tyagi learned Counsel for the peti­tioners and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. 2. By means of the present petition, the validity and legality of the order dated 18.10. 2001 passed by the Board of Reve­nue, U.P. at Allahabad in second appeal Nos. 38 and 39 of 1997-98 whereby it has allowed the appeals and the delay in their filing has been condoned. The Board of Revenue has remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment. The facts of the case so far as they are relevant for the purposes of present writ petition, may be noticed in brief. 3. It appears that suit Nos. 31 and 32 of 1963-64 were instituted by the petition­ers in respect of the plot in dispute under section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The said suits were decreed by the judg­ment and decree dated 20th of November, 1963 by the Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Bu-landshahar. The said decrees were con­firmed in revenue appeal Nos. 36 and 37 of 1963 - 1964 by the order dated 8th of July, 1964 by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. The orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut were challenged for the first time by filing Second Appeal Nos. 38 and 39 of 1997-98. These second appeals were filed after about 36 years. These appeals were accompanied with an applications for condonation of delay in their filing. The Board of Revenue by the impugned judgment and order has con­doned the delay and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh considera­tion. 4. The learned Counsel for the peti­tioners submits that there was an enormous delay in filing of the appeals before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue without applying its mind to the facts of the case has mechanically condoned the delay. 5. Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that, as a matter of fact, the first appeals were not filed by the contesting respondents and everything was ma­nipulated by the petitioners. 6. Considered the respective sub­missions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that, as a matter of fact, the first appeals were not filed by the contesting respondents and everything was ma­nipulated by the petitioners. 6. Considered the respective sub­missions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order would show that the Board of Revenue has allowed the second appeals without prop­erly considering the respective cases of the parties. The order of the Board of Revenue is cryptic. The impugned order does not show that the Board of Revenue has ap­plied its mind as to whether such a long delay has been sufficiently explained or not. Simply, by making a sweeping remark that the affidavit filed by the appellants is near to the correct facts and that the cause shown is sufficient, the delay has been con­doned, which is not sufficient. It should have made an analysis of the respective cases of the parties and the evidence pro­duced by them before condoning the delay. It is true that the Supreme Court has held that the approach of the Courts should be justice oriented and liberal in condoning the delay. It does not mean that howsoever delay may be, it is liable to be condoned. Since the said issue has not been properly considered and decided, it is in the interest of justice to restore the matter back to the Board of Revenue for reconsideration of the applications for condoning the delay in filing the appeals. 7. The order of Board of Revenue demonstrates total non-application of mind. Serious contentions opposing the delay condonation application were raised; it was bound to assign reasons so as to en­able the Writ Court to ascertain as to whether it had applied his mind to the relevant factors while condoning the delay. Whatever has been said in support of the application has been readily accepted without making any analysis of the facts of the case. 8. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The mat­ter is restored back to the Board of Revenue to reconsider and redecide the delay con­donation applications in filing the appeals. 8. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The mat­ter is restored back to the Board of Revenue to reconsider and redecide the delay con­donation applications in filing the appeals. Since the matter is old one, it is expected that the Board of Revenue shall dispose of the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. 9. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed.