JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard P.K. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7, Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and 10 and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 25.04.2016, passed by the District Collector, West Tripura in Revenue Case No. 84 of 2016 under Section 96 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960. The petition filed by the private-respondents, except the respondent No. 3, for review of the order dated 12.06.2015 in the Revenue Revision Case No. 660 of 2013 under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 passed by the District Collector has been admitted to be heard after the sanction was accorded by the State Government by their communication dated 15.02.2016. 3. According to Mr. P. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the said order admitting the petition for review is bad in law, inasmuch as in view of Sub-section 2 of Section 96, the application for review against the order affecting any question of right between the private person shall be filed within 90 days from the date of the order sought to be reviewed and by which any of the private parties is aggrieved. 4. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel has succinctly submitted that no order ought to have been passed without noticing the said bar of limitation. In view of the statutory bar of limitation as created by the said provision, the registration of the review application by the impugned order dated 25.04.2016, is entirely without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the respondents having referred to a communication by which sanction from the State Government was sought by the Collector has submitted that the Collector has clearly noted as under : “The Review petitioners also submitted a prayer for condonation of delay of 241 days which may be taken into consideration.” 5. On scrutiny of the records as produced, this court does find that such application for condonation of delay was filed by the review petitioners before the Collector and the Collector has duly noted it. But without taking any decision on the issue of condonation, the review application has been registered. On scrutiny of the records as produced, this court does find that such application for condonation of delay was filed by the review petitioners before the Collector and the Collector has duly noted it. But without taking any decision on the issue of condonation, the review application has been registered. This is grossly irregular and non-exercise of the jurisdiction embedded with the Collector under Section 96(2) of the Tripura Land Revenue & Land Reforms Act, 1960, ‘the TLR & LR Act’ in short. 6. It appears further from the records that even the application that was filed for condonation of delay of 241 days under Section 5 of the Limitation for preferring the review application against the order dated 12.06.2015 passed by the District Collector, West Tripura (DM & Collector) has not even registered separately and no order on that application has been passed. However, reference has been made by the Collector in the said communication. The sanction of reviewing any order under Section 96 does not automatically wither the bar of limitation. It is a composite issue both of jurisdiction and exercise of discretion if the power to condone the delay is provided by the statute. 7. Leaving this issue of the jurisdiction, whether the Collector can condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act? The question might visit with force. This court is of the view that since no decision, having regard to Section 96(2) of the TLR & LR Act, has been taken by the Collector in respect of the delay in filing the review application and this is an admitted position of fact, particularly on the face of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which is available with the record, the said registering the review application is interfered with and set aside. 8. Before registering the review application, the District Collector, West Tripura District is directed to consider whether the review petition can be admitted in view of Section 96(2) of the TLR & LR Act. While deciding the said issue he must take cognizance of the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the review petitioners. The Collector shall decide further that whether the District Collector within the meaning as provided in the TLR & LR Act can be brought within the definition of the court as referred in the Limitation Act, 1963. The Collector shall decide further that whether the District Collector within the meaning as provided in the TLR & LR Act can be brought within the definition of the court as referred in the Limitation Act, 1963. The parties shall be afforded with opportunity to represent. 9. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel has submitted that they have not been given any notice in respect of the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The District Collector before deciding the issue, shall issue notice to the present petitioners herein who are impleaded as the respondents in that petition on asking them to file their reply within a time, as would be stipulated by the Collector and only thereafter the matter would be heard and decided. 10. Accordingly, this petition stands partly allowed. The matter is remitted back for the decision of the Collector in terms of this order. Send down the records with a copy of this order.