ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India assails the order dated 6.5.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue while upholding the order of SDO passed on 21.12.2012 while exercising revisional jurisdiction. 2. The SDO by the order dated 21.12.2012 for entertaining the appeal under section 44 of M.P. Land Revenue Code allowed an application under section 5 of Limitation Act condoning delay of about 35 years in preferring the appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. 4. The basic facts giving rise to the instant case are that assailing the order of Naib Tahsildar passed on 8.7.1976 allotting lease hold rights to the respondents, an appeal under section 44 was filed before the SDO sometime in December 2011. An application seeking condonation of delay of about 35 years was annexed with the appeal, explaining the delay by stating on oath that the appellant had no knowledge of passing of the order of Naib Tahsildar. 5. The SDO while condoning delay of about 35 years, has merely repeated the contents of the application for condonation of delay without entering into the tenability of the same. The Board of Revenue has though passed a detailed order upholding the condonation of delay of 35 years . 6. From the perusal of the order of Board of Revenue, it appears that the Board, persuaded by the fact that the property in question is Government land and the petitioner being villagers is interested in the Government land. The Board further found that the petitioner had no knowledge of grant of lease hold rights in favour of the respondents. 7. The Courts while deciding the tenability of an application for condonation of delay are required to fall back upon the material available in the application seeking condonation of delay. The contents of the application for condonation of delay which is filed herewith as annexure P-9 indicates that a bald statement is made that appellant had no knowledge of the factum of allotment of lease hold rights in favour of the respondent in regard to Government land situated adjacent to the Village in which the petitioner resides. No detail as to how and in what circumstance, the petitioner could not gain knowledge for 35 long years of an event pertaining to a land adjacent to village in which he resides . No detail as to how and in what circumstance, the petitioner could not gain knowledge for 35 long years of an event pertaining to a land adjacent to village in which he resides . The said application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, to say the lease is desperately wanting in material particulars. 8. Thus there was no material before the Court of SDO and also before the Board of Revenue to conclude that delay is reasonably explained. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Single Judge of this Court in case of case of Radhacharan v. State of M.P. reported in 2013 RN 41 . 10. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents supporting the order impugned herein has placed reliance on the decision of Single Judge of this Court in case of Mani Bai v. Avinash Jamidar & others reported in 2005 Vol 4 MPLJ Pg 232. 11. The decision in the case of Mani Bai (supra), is not applicable to the case at hand, as in the said case of Mani Bai (supra), there were material to explain the delay occasioned. 12. This Court is in agreement with the decision of the Single Judge of this Court in case of Radhacharan (supra). 13. The delay of about 35 years not having been reasonably explained as no material particulars are available in the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Courts below failed to rightly exercise the jurisdiction vested in them according to law in law. 14. Accordingly the order of Board of Revenue and as well as the order of SDO is set aside. 15. This petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the private respondents herein (3-8) to file a fresh application for condonation of delay providing material particulars in support of the reasons for explaining the delay of 35 years in preferring the appeal before the SDO.